I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. # 

# $ 

U$tt?Mu%,..: { 

# 

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J 




THE DISRUPTION 



OF THE 



Methodist Episcopal Church, 



1844:-1846: 



Comprising a Thirty Years' History op the 
Eelations op the Two Methodisms. 



BY EDWARD H. MYEES, D.D. 



With an Introduction by T. O. Summers, D.D. 






' 



NASHVILLE, TENN. : A. H. REDFORD, AGENT. 
MACON, GA.: J. W. BURKE & CO. 

1875. 






' T H£ Library] 

OF C ONG RESS 
[WASHINGTON 






Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1875, 

By E. H. MYERS, 
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



STEREOTYPED AT THE PUBLISHING HOUSE OF THE M. E. CHUItCH, SOUTH, 
NASHVILLE, TENN. 



To 
All the Members 

OF THE 

TWO EPISCOPAL METHODISMS 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMEEICA, 
Who Wish to Know and to Follow 

THE TKTJTH, 

This Appeal to the Future Against the Past — to 1876 
Against 1848 — 

Is Respectfully Dedicated by 

THE AUTHOR. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Preface 7 

Introduction.. 13 



CHAPTER I. 

The Attitude of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
toward Slavery 17 



CHAPTER II. 
The General Conference of 1844 41 

CHAPTER III. 

The Constitutional Powers of the General Confer- 
ence 47 

CHAPTER IV. 

The Perversion of Law by the General Conference 
of 1844 60 

CHAPTER V. 

The Kelation of the Bishops to the General Confer- 
ence 68 



CHAPTER VI. 

A Division of the Church Declared Inevitable be- 
fore the Finley Kesolution was Passed, and the 
Eesult was Intended 86 

(5) 



6 Contents. 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Plan of Separation Proposed and Adopted 95 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The Conditions of the Plan oe Separation 105 

CHAPTER IX. 

Action of the South on the Plan of Separation 128 



CHAPTER X. 

The General Conference of 1848. — Repudiation of 
the Plan of Separation 141 



CHAPTER XL 

Two Divisions of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
Prior to 1844 154 



CHAPTER XII. 
The Legal Aspects of the Subject 169 

. CHAPTER XIII. 

The Present Relations of the Two Methodisms 185 



PEEFACE. 



HAS not the time arrived for a calm and impartial discussion 
of those questions which, having first divided, have subse- 
quently alienated from each other, the two great branches of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church? Let us hope it — let us presume 
that the "fraternal greetings" interchanged in May, 1874, indicate 
a sincere desire for peace and cordial Christian reciprocity betwixt 
these kindred Communions. But this desirable result is not to be 
secured merely by the cry of "Peace, peace! when there is no 
peace." The members of these negotiating bodies ought to under- 
stand each other — ought to comprehend thoroughly the facts and 
principles underlying their separation and alienation. I say "prin- 
ciples," for if the attitude of hostility in which they now stand to 
each other be ba^ed on passion and prejudice alone, then neither 
Church would deserve the respect of the Christian world did they 
not at once bury these forever out of sight. 

In the interest, therefore, of peace — to do what he can to secure 
permanent fraternity between these kindred Communions — the 
writer sends forth this volume. It is, necessarily, both historical 
and polemic. As a history, it narrates the events of 1844; giving 
the partition between two jurisdictions of the ministry and mem- 
bership of the one original Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States; the principles occasioning the rupture maintained 
by the antagonistic parties; the relations the two Churches have 
since held toward each other; and their attitude now that tenta- 
tive efforts toward reconciliation have been inaugurated. 

(7) 



8 Preface. 

Polemics have a place in this volume, because the events have 
been misunderstood, misinterpreted, sometimes perverted; and it 
is the province of argument to restore to proper order this dislo- 
cated history — to give back the meaning that has been wrested 
from it, that there may be found in it no longer a pretext for the 
defamation of Southern Methodism; for the writer occupies the 
ground held by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

There is good reason, at the present time, for recalling this past 
history, and for restating the principles which have guided the 
movements, and warranted the action, of that Church; for the 
questions brought, by recent events, before both Communions can- 
not be understandingly discussed, or satisfactorily settled, without 
recurring to a history almost forgotten except by a few of the sur- 
vivors of those enacting it — and in their memory too often dis- 
torted by the passions and excitements engendered by subsequent 
controversies amid the convulsions of sectional revolution. It is 
not wonderful that those troubled times gave rise to misunder- 
standings acrimonious in character and fatal to Christian charity 
in result; but it will be a lasting reproach to calm reason, and a 
foul blot upon religion, if those who are before the world as teach- 
ers and exemplars of both cannot dismiss all passion and prejudice, 
and come to the investigation of a great question involving vital 
interests in the kingdom of Christ in an impartial, philosophic 
spirit. In this temper the author has endeavored to examine this 
grave subject, and he commends this treatise to all in both Com- 
munions who will approach it with the wish to know "the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." 

This discussion comes opportunely to the members of the Church, 
South, lest they be hurried away, by an ardent temperament that 
responds impulsively to the proffer of fraternity, from a consider- 
ation of those principles by which alone they- can vindicate their 
past history and their permanent separate organization. Christian 
charity is commendable — a duty; but that impulsive charity, so- 



Preface. 9 

called, which has no underlying principle, damages instead of ad- 
vances that cause of Christ, in whose name it vaunts itself. 

But the author writes not for his own Communion alone. He 
here gives a connected, though "brief, history of the events that 
radiate from the year 1844, when the division of American Epis- 
copal Methodism was inaugurated. Using principally official and 
semi-official documents and contemporary publications, whose au- 
thority will scarce he questioned by the most skeptical partisan — 
rarely advancing an opinion unsustained by documentary evidence 
— his statements especially well fortified at all vital points by in- 
disputable proofs, he confidently offers the result to the Christian 
world to establish the validity of the claim of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, to be no offspring of schism or secession, but 
entitled to a place in the sisterhood of Churches of equal legiti- 
macy with her twin sister, the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Especially does the writer appeal to those of the sister Commun- 
ion whose hearts are inclined to fraternity to study this array of 
fact and argument with particular care. For his purpose is not to 
hinder, but to promote, a, lasting peace, if it can be secured on just 
principles — and honorable to both Churches; and presuming that 
his co-religionists of the Methodist Episcopal Church seek nothing 
besides this, he asks them to review the history here embodied in 
that spirit of candor which he claims to have himself brought to 
the examination of official documents and contemporary records; 
and that both history and argument be considered apart from 
whatever prejudices may have been engendered by collateral, and 
what some persist in esteeming as closely-related, questions — such 
as slavery, secession, civil war, etc. These are not now factors in 
the problem, of the relations of the two Methodisms, however 
much they may have once determined the judgment and the con- 
duct of the past and passing generation. The writer is persuaded 
that if those who, having grown up since the division, had no part 
in the original controversy and its immediate results will use this 



10 Preface. 

opportunity of reviewing the opinions adopted from ex parte rep- 
resentations in the light of what Southern Methodism offers to 
vindicate its historical position, they will give their voice for such 
a settlement as shall be satisfactory to Southern Methodism — how- 
ever much their verdict may disappoint the original movers of 
discord and fomenters of strife. From these only resistance and 
obloquy can be expected — and naturally, for only thus can they 
vindicate the mistakes of a life-time. The reliance for a perma- 
nent peace betwixt the Churches is in the later generation of un- 
prejudiced members in our sister Church. Hence this appeal to 
1876 against 1848 — the year of that direful repudiation that lies 
at the bottom of all present difficulties. From them the writer 
asks a calm consideration of this volume. If his facts can be suc- 
cessfully controverted, or his argument met by more potent ar- 
gument, he is open to conviction, and ready to follow wherever 
Tkuth may lead. If he has established the principal points 
taken in hand — even if mistaken as to some minor particulars — 
he expects such a general agreement in opinion between the lead- 
ers of the sister Churches as will result in permanent peace. 

To forestall a too rigid criticism of the author's style, he begs 
leave to say that his ambition as a writer will be satisfied if this 
be found a correct exposition of the history and principles of 
Southern Methodism. If it be, he is confident that its correct 
historical narrative and conclusive argument will give the book a 

value which no mere literary merit could impart'. 

E. H. M. 

Macon, Ga., November, 1874. 

Note. — The authorities I have mostly relied on for my narra- 
tive are the Journals and Debates of the General Conferences of 
the two Churches, the Journal of the Louisville Convention that 
organized the Methodist Episcopal Church, Soiith, the contempo- 
rary discussions and publications of the principal actors in the 
events of 1844-48, and the history of those events authorized to 



Preface. 11 

be written by the General Conference of 1848 — and written by 
Dr. Charles Elliott, under the title, The Great Secession — in itself 
a standing crimination of the Church, South, and offensive for this 
fact, as well as for its perversions and distortions of history and 
argument. But as his main purpose was to place that Church 
in as odious a light as possible, his authority is all the more relia- 
ble whenever he states what may be used for its vindication. 

I have not cited the page, etc., in many instances, because the 
course of the narrative will direct the intelligent reader to tho 
source of authority. 

Those who desire to see in extenso the documents quoted from, 
will find many of them in Bedford's Organization of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. 



INTRODUCTION. 



PEEHAPS no man living is better acquainted with the matters 
discussed in this volume than its author. He was for several 
years editor of one of the leading journals of the Church — he has 
been an efficient member of several General Conferences — and has 
been chosen by the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, as a member of the Commission "to adjust all existing diffi- 
culties" between the Northern and the Southern branches of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. His relation to the subject, his great 
abilities, and peculiar turn of mind, eminently qualify him for this 
work. 

But it may be asked, Cuilono?. "Why revive a controversy which 
has occasioned so much trouble, and on which so much has been 
published? 

The answer is patent and brief. A movement has been initiated 
to bring about fraternization between the "Two Methodisms," and 
it is very desirable that there should be a convenient resume of the 
controversy, so that all concerned may see what is necessary to be 
done in order to effect a consummation so devoutly to be wished. 

No fraternization that is not a farce can be effected by simply 
saying, " Let by-gones be by-gones — pay no attention to what was 
done in 1844, or 1848 — to the 'Plan of Separation, 7 as ratified by 
the Southern Church and the Supreme Court of the United States, 
and nullified by the Northern Church — let us shake hands over 
the chasm, and have done with it." 

The proper course to be pursued is to ascertain what are the re- 

(13) 



14 Introduction. 

lations which the two Connections actually sustain to each other, 
and what is necessary to be done by each to secure fraternization 
on a permanent basis. To this end, the causes and consequences 
of the "Disruption" must be carefully and candidly examined, and 
this is what is done in the present volume. 

It is necessary, furthermore, to show the differences between the 
two Connections which preclude organic union, confounded by 
some with fraternization. It will be seen by this volume that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, still holds to the view of our 
Episcopacy which was held by the fathers of the Church, as set 
forth in Emory's Defense of Our Fathers, and other works — which 
involves the principle that Bishops cannot be deposed by a delegated 
General Conference, except as, by due process of trial, they may be 
excommunicated — the vexed question which divided the Church in 
1844. The South cannot recede from its platform — it does not ask the 
North to recede from its. So with regard to views on slavery, the 
terms of membership, the powers of Quarterly and District Con- 
ferences, lay representation in the Annual, as well as the General, 
Conference, and other matters. These differences preclude organic 
union, but do not stand in the way of fraternization. 

They need not prevent that development of Methodist fraternity 
into an Ecumenical Conference, which we have long desired. We 
would have the great and unwieldy Connections divided into sev- 
eral distinct jurisdictions, with their General Conferences and 
Bishops, or Presidents, as the case may be, and all the Connections 
represented in one Conference, without legislative or judicial pow- 
ers, which may meet within the bounds of the several jurisdic- 
tions in rotation — beginning with -the Central British Connection 
— to ratify the common Methodism. 

Surely this is as feasible as any Pan- Anglican or Pan-Presbyte- 
rian Synod; and all good Methodists must desire' to see substantial 
fraternity like this introduced as speedily as possible. 

The author of this work has had this end in view — hence he has 



Introduction. 15 

conceived and executed it in an irenic spirit, which can scarcely 
fail to secure for it the divine blessing. 

It was almost the dying charge of John Wesley that the Meth- 
odists should be one the world over — not one in polity, as he or- 
ganized American Methodism into an Episcopal Church, but did 
not so organize British and Irish Methodism — but one in doctrine 
and spirit. The present volume is well adapted to promote this 
end. 

"We are authorized to say that some of the Bishops of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South — we doubt not all of them will 
concur with their colleagues — agree with us in our estimate of 
this work, and the expediency of its publication. 

Thos. O. Summers. 

Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
Nashville, Tenn,, Sept. 13, 1875. 



THE DISRUPTION 

OF THE 

Methodist Episcopal Church. 



CHAPTER I. 



THE ATTITUDE OF THE ORIGINAL METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
CHUKCH TOWARD SLAVERY. 

PKIOB to 1846, Episcopal Methodism in the United 
States was represented in one General Conference, 
whose jurisdiction was coextensive with the country. 
Certain acts of the General Conference of 1844 resulted 
in the division of this heretofore ecumenical Method- 
ism, and the establishment of two jurisdictions where 
one had heretofore held sway. Each has its General 
Conference, while previously there was but one such 
body; each is known as Episcopal Methodist — the one 
retaining the title of the original ecumenical Church, 
the other styled the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
In giving the history of this division, it is proper to 
begin with the circumstance that gave it origin. 

When James O. Andrew, a native Georgian, was, in 
1832, elected to the Episcopacy, he was not a slave- 
holder. Afterward, and under circumstances to be 
stated hereafter, he became a slave-holder ; and this fact 
induced that action in the General Conference of 1844 
which led to the disruption. To rightly understand 
the influences then at work, it becomes necessary to 
preface our history of that action by an account of the 

(17) 



18 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

attitude held by the Church to the slavery question 
down to that memorable year. This is all the more 
necessary because it has been charged that the pro- 
slavery "aggressions" of Southern Methodism caused 
the division, and the Church, South, has been conse- 
quently accused of being organized as a pro-slavery 
Church.* But the truth of history reveals the fact 
that, even should it be allowed that slavery was a 
cause rather than an occasion of the disruption of the 
Church, it was so not because the South sought any 
change in the principles, rules, or practice of the 
Church on this subject, but that the other party made it 
what it was — cause or occasion, as one pleases — by 
taking a new attitude in reference to it, contradictory 
to the rules, precedents, and principles which had, to 
that time, controlled the Church, and which the South- 
ern Delegates endeavored to maintain in all their 
purity and vigor. The South stood upon the accepted 
platform of the Church on the slavery question — the 
North took "a new departure;" and if, therefore, 
slavery was the cause of the division, not the South, 
but the North, made it so; and to criminate the South 
is not warranted by fact or justice. That the South 
sought for no change in the relations of the Church to 
slavery, nor did its Delegates propose or desire any ac- 
tion contradictory of the established policy of the 
Church, will appear from the facts now to be stated. 

It would be tedious and irrelevant to give a complete 
history of the forward and backward movements of 
the Church in legislating on slavery: its attitude in 
1844 is what now concerns us. At that period the Dis- 
cipline embodied in the "General Rules" a prohibition 
of "the buying and selling of men, women, and chil- 
dren, with an intention to enslave them." Into this 
form the law had settled in 1808, and it was then put 
under the guard of the "Restrictive Articles." The 

■■• Since this was written, I have met with the following from the Christian 
Advocate and Journal, the only admission I have seen in any paper of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church of the truth of what is here" proved: " Our South- 
ern brethren tell us that slavery was not the cause of the disruption of the 
Church thirty years ago, and therefore the destruction of slavery does not re- 
move that cause ; and they are right. And though there were then other local 
differences of views on certain points of ecclesiastical polity and discipline, 
yet these were not of such power or magnitude as to lead to serious disturb- 
ances." 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 19 

only change ever proposed, North or South, before 
1844 was of the "and" into "or; "and the terms of the 
rule were so loose that though some offenders may at 
times have been tried under it, yet I do not know that 
it was ever done; though in all the years it was law 
there were thousands of Methodists who bought and 
sold slaves. Neither party in 1844, except in some of 
the New England Conferences — no party of force 
enough to make the question vital — contended for a 
change in this rule. As to it, therefore, slavery was 
not in the controversy. In 1858 the Church, South, 
expunged it, on the ground that its vagueness made it 
inoperative, and as the "intention" it indicated could 
only be that of "enslaving" a person free until "en- 
slaved " by sale or purchase, it could only apply to the 
African slave-trade, which the civil laws could suf- 
ficiently control 

Two years later, in 1860, the Methodist Episcopal 
Church substituted "The Section on Slavery" by one 
virtually prohibiting the buying, selling, and holding 
of slaves — a change that ultimately cost that Church 
by far the larger part of the ministers and members of 
the Baltimore Conference. In 1864 it changed the 
general rule to " slave-holding, buying or selling- 
slaves ;" yet it may be questioned whether the new 
rule was ever enforced by the expulsion of a slave- 
holder. It is, indeed, a fact that there were slave- 
holders in that Church down to the day that President 
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation took effect, when 
both Churches ceased simultaneously to be slave-hold- 
ing Churches. If so, how can it be pretended that, in 
1844, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was emi- 
nently a pro-slavery Church, when it asked in this 
regard for no change of the practices or principles of 
original Methodism? Here, then, we do not find the 
cause of division. 

Nor was what is called " The Section on Slavery," 
in the Discipline, at all in controversy. Neither party 
denied the validity of that section — and it was only 
the Northern agitators that asked any change in it — 
as will presently appear. To charge, then, that the 
South made slavery the cause of division is but a repe- 



20 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

tition of the old accusation of the wolf in the fable, 
that the lamb muddied the stream while drinking be- 
low him. It was only incidentally, and, as we shall 
hereafter see, by narrowing the extent of its provis- 
ions, that this section was brought into the contro- 
versy. Meanwhile, we give it here, for convenient 
reference: 

1. We declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the 
great evil of slavey; therefore, no slave-holder shall be eligible 
to any official station in our Church hereafter, where the laws of 
the State in which he lives will admit of emancipation and permit 
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom. 

2. "When any traveling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or 
slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in 
our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emanci- 
pation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in 
which he lives. 

Other paragraphs, having reference to the treatment 
of slaves — the relation being thereby recognized as le- 
gitimate — and to colored preachers and official mem- 
bers, are not pertinent to this discussion. 

Thus far as to the Discipline of 1844 on this subject; 
but the attitude of the Church down to that time, and 
the growth of those revolutionary principles in the 
North — for thence came the elements of discord — which 
culminated that year in the disruption of the Church, 
demand a fuller historical presentation. 

Nothing ought to define more satisfactorily the prin- 
ciples of the Church than the acts and deliverances of 
the General Conference itself. The Bishops' Quadren- 
nial Address in 1840 so fully sets forth the accepted 
policy of Methodism, at this period, that I copy from 
it a passage pregnant with words of warning and wis- 
dom: 

In your Pastoral Address to the ministers and people at your 
last session, with great unanimity, . . . you solemnly advised 
the whole body to abstain from all abolition movements, and from 
agitating the exciting subject in the Church. This advice was in 
perfect agreement with the individual as well as associated views 
of your Superintendents. . . . And it affords us great pleas- 
ure to be able to assure you that our efforts in this respect have 
been very generally approved, and your advice cordially received 
and practically observed in a very large majority of the Annual 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 21 

Conferences, as will more fully appear to yon on the careful exam- 
ination of the journals of those bodies for the last four years. 

But we regret that we are compelled to say that, in some of the 
Northern and Eastern Conferences, in contravention of your Chris- 
tian and pastoral counsel, and of your best efforts to carry it into 
effect, the subject has been agitated in such forms and in such a 
spirit as to disturb the peace of the Church. This unhappy agita- 
tion has not been confined to the Annual Conferences, but has been 
introduced into Quarterly Conferences, and made the absorbing 
business of self-created bodies in the bosom of our beloved Zion. 
The professed object of all these operations is to free the Methodist 
Episcopal Church from the "great moral evil of slavery," and to 
secure to the enslaved the rights and privileges of free citizens of 
these United States. . . . 

We cannot but regard it as of unhappy tendency that either in- 
dividual members or official bodies in the Church should employ 
terms and pass resolutions of censure and condemnation on their 
brethren, and on public officers and official bodies, over whose ac- 
tions they have no legitimate jurisdiction. It requires no very 
extensive knowledge of human nature to be convinced that if we 
would convert our fellow-men from the error of their ways we 
must address them not in terms of crimination and reproach, but 
in the milder language of respect, persuasion, and kindness. 

It is justly due to a number of the Annual Conferences in which 
a majority, or a very respectable number, of the members are pro- 
fessedly Abolitionists to say that they occupy a very different 
ground, and pursue a very different course, from those of their 
brethren who have adopted ultra principles and measures in this 
unfortunate, and we think unprofitable, controversy. The result 
of action had in such Conferences on the resolution of the New 
England Conference, recommending a very important change in 
our general rule on slavery, is satisfactory proof of this fact, and 
affords us strong and increasing confidence that the unity and 
peace of the Church are not to be materially affected by this ex- 
citing subject. 

Many of the preachers who were favorably disposed to the cause 
of abolition, when they saw the extent to which it was designed to 
carry these measures, and the inevitable consequences of their pros- 
ecution, came to a pause, reflected, and declined their cooperation. 
They clearly perceived that the success of the measures would result 
in the division of the Church;* and for such an event they were 
not prepared. They have no disposition to criminate their breth- 
ren in the South who are unavoidably connected with the institu- 
tion of slavery, or to separate from them on that account. It is 
believed that men of ardent temperament, whose zeal may have 
been somewhat in advance of their knowledge and discretion, have 
made such advances in the abolition enterprise as to produce a re- 
action. 

-Mark the sentence I have italicized. It shows when, where, and how di- 
vision had its inception. 



22 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

A few preachers and members, disappointed in their expecta- 
tions, and despairing of the success of their cause in the Method- 
ist Church, have withdrawn from our fellowship, and connected 
themselves with associations more congenial with their views and 
feelings; and others, in similar circumstances, may probably fol- 
low their example. But we rejoice in believing that these seces- 
sions will be very limited, and that the great body of Methodists 
in these States will continue, as they have been, one and insepara- 
ble. The uniformity and stability of our course should be such as 
to let all candid and thinking men see that the cause of secessions 
from us is not a change of our doctrine or moral discipline — no 
imposition of new terms of communion — no violation of covenant 
engagements on the part of the Church. It is a matter worthy of 
particular notice that those who have departed from us do not 
pretend that any material change in our system, with respect 
either to doctrine, discipline, or government, has taken place since 
they voluntarily united themselves with us; and it is ardently to 
be desired that no such innovation may be effected as to furnish 
any just ground for such a pretension. 

The experience of more than half a century, since the organiza- 
tion of our ecclesiastical body, will afford us many important lights 
and landmarks, pointing out what is the safest and most prudent 
policy to be pursued in our onward course as regards African slavery 
in these States; and especially in our own religious community. 
This very interesting period of our history is distinguished by sev- 
eral characteristic features having a special claim to our considera- 
tion at the present time, particularly in view of the unusual excite- 
ment which now prevails on the subject, not only in the different 
Christian Churches, but also in the civil body. 

And, first: Our general rule on slavery, which forms a part of 
the Constitution of the Church, has stood from the beginning un- 
changed, as testamentary of our sentiments on the principle of 
slavery and the slave-trade; and in this we differ in no respect 
from the sentiments of our venerable founder, or from those of 
the wisest and most distinguished statesmen and civilians of our 
own and other enlightened Christian countries. 

Secondly: In all the enactments of the Church relating to 
slavery a due and respectful regard has been had to the laws of 
the States, never requiring emancipation in contravention of the 
civil authority, or where the laws of the States would not allow 
the liberated slave to enjoy his freedom. 

Thirdly: The simply holding or owning slaves, without regard 
to circumstances, has at no period of the existence of the Church 
subjected the master to excommunication. 

Fourthly: Kules have been made from time to time, regulating 
the sale, and purchase, and holding of slaves, with reference to the 
different laws of the States where slavery is tolerated, which, upon 
the experience of the great difficulties of administering them, and 
the unhappy consequences both to masters and servants, have been 
as often changed or repealed. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 23 

These important facts, which form prominent features of our 
past history as a Church, may very properly lead us to inquire for 
that course of action in future which may he best calculated to 
preserve the peace and unity of the whole body, promote the 
greatest happiness of the slave population, and advance generally, 
in the slave-holding community of our country, the humane and 
hallowing influence of our holy religion. 

"We cannot withhold from you, at this eventful period, the sol- 
emn conviction of our minds that no new ecclesiastical legislation 
on the subject of slavery, at this time, will have a tendency to ac- 
complish these most desirable objects. And we are fully persuaded 
that, as a body of Christian ministers, we shall accomplish the 
greatest good by directing our individual and united efforts, in the 
spirit of the first teachers of Christianity, to bring both master 
and servant under the sanctifying influence of the principles of 
that gospel which teaches the duties of every relation, and en- 
forces the faithful discharge of them by the strongest conceivable 
motives. Do we aim at the amelioration of the condition of the 
slave? How can we so effectually accomplish this, in our calling 
as ministers of the gospel of Christ, as by employing our whole 
influence to bring both him and his master to a saving knowledge 
of the grace of God, and to a practical observance of those rela- 
tive duties so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired 
apostle? 

Permit us to add that, although we enter not into the political 
contentions of the day, neither interfere with civil legislation nor 
with the administration of the laws, we cannot but feel a deep in- 
terest in whatever affects the peace, prosperity, and happiness of 
our beloved country. The union of these States, the perpetuity of 
the bonds of our national confederation, the reciprocal confidence 
of the different members of the great civil compact — in a word, 
the well-being of the community of which we are members — should 
never cease to lay near our hearts, and for which we should offer 
up our sincere and most ardent prayers to the almighty Euler of 
the universe. But can we, as ministers of the gospel and servants 
of a Master "whose kingdom is not of this world," promote these 
important objects in any way so truly and permanently as by pur- 
suing the course just pointed out? Can we, at this eventful crisis, 
render a better service to our country than by laying aside all in- 
terference with relations authorized and established by the civil 
laws, and applying ourselves wholly and faithfully to what spe- 
cially appertains to our "high and holy calling?" to teach and 
enforce the moral obligations of the gospel in application to all 
the duties growing out of the different relations in society? By a 
diligent devotion to this evangelical employment, with an humble 
and steadfast reliance upon the aid of Divine influence, the number 
of "believing masters" and servants may be constantly increased, 
the kindest sentiments and affections cultivated, domestic burdens 
lightened, mutual confidence cherished, and the peace and happi- 
ness of society be promoted. While, on the other hand, if past 



24 The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 

history affords us any correct rules of judgment, there is much 
cause to fear that the influence of our sacred office, if employed in 
interference with the relation itself, and consequently with the 
civil institutions of the country, will rather tend to prevent than 
to accomplish these desirable ends. 

This last paragraph gives an insight into the re- 
sults of the agitation arising in the Church respecting 
slavery that ought to have arrested it; but it did not, 
as we shall see. 

The British Conference sent a Delegate, Dr. Kobert 
Newton, to the General Conference of 1840. The Wes- 
leyans embodied in their address a mild exhortation to 
the Conference to be firm in its "opposition to slavery," 
etc. In the answer of the G-eneral Conference to this 
address that body is as emphatic in the declaration of 
its principles as were the Bishops in their address. 
That portion of the reply given below was submitted 
to vote apart from the rest, and was adopted by a vote 
of 114 to 18, as follows : 

"We have considered, with affectionate respect and confidence, 
your brotherly suggestions concerning slavery, and most cheer- 
fully return an unreserved answer to them. And we do so the 
rather, brethren, because of the numerous prejudicial statements 
which have been put forth in certain quarters to the wounding of 
the Church. We assure you, then, brethren, that we have adopted 
no new principle or rule of discipline respecting slavery since the 
time of our apostolic Asbury; neither do we mean to adopt any. 
In our General Rules (called the "General Rules of the United 
Societies," and which are of constitutional authority in our Church) 
"the buying and selling of men, women, and children, with the in- 
tention to enslave them, 11 is expressly prohibited; and in the same 
words, substantially, which have been used for the rule since 1792. 
And the extract of Part II., section 10, of our Book of Discipline, 
which you quote with approbation, and denominate "a noble testi- 
mony," is still of force to the same extent that it has been for many 
years; nor do we entertain any purpose to omit or qualify this sec- 
tion, or any part thereof, for while we should regard it as a sore 
evil to divert Methodism from her proper work of spreading 
"Scripture holiness over these lands 11 to questions of temporal im- 
port, involving the rights of Cesar, yet are we not less minded on 
that account to promote and set forward all humane and generous 
actions, or to prevent, to the utmost of our power, such as are evil 
and unchristian. It is our great desire, after piety toward God, to 
be "merciful after our power, as we have opportunity, doing good of 
every possible sort, and as far as possible to all men 11 — u to their 
bodies, 11 but especially, and above all, "to their souls. 11 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 25 

Of these United States (to the Government and laws of which, 
"according to division of power made to them by the Constitution 
of the Union, and the constitutions of the several States," we owe, 
and delight to render, a sincere and patriotic loyalty) there are sev- 
eral which do not allow of slavery. There are others in which it 
is allowed, and there are slaves, but the tendency of the laws and 
the minds of the majority of the people are in favor of emancipa- 
tion. But there are others in which slavery exists so universally, 
and is so closely interwoven with their civil institutions, that both 
do the laws disallow of emancipation and the great body of the 
people (the source of laws with us) hold it to be treasonable to set 
forth any thing, by word or deed, tending that way. Each one of 
all these States" is independent of the rest, and sovereign, with re- 
spect to its internal government (as much so as if there existed no 
confederation among them for ends of common interest), and there- 
fore it is impossible to frame a rule on slavery proper for our peo- 
ple in all the States alike. But our Church is extended through all 
the States, and it would be wrong and unscriptural to enact a rule 
of discipline in opposition to the Constitution and laws of the State 
on this subject; so also would it not be equitable or scriptural to 
confound the positions of our ministers and people (so different as 
they are in different States) with respect to the moral question 
which slavery involves. 

Under the administration of the venerated Dr. Coke this plain dis- 
tinction was once overlooked, and it was attempted to urge eman- 
cipation in all the States; but the attempt proved almost ruinous, 
and was soon abandoned by the Doctor himself. While, therefore, 
the Church has encouraged emancipation in those States where the 
laws permit it and allow the freedman to enjoy freedom, we have 
refrained, for conscience' sake, from all intermeddling with the sub- 
ject in those other States where the laws make it criminal. And 
such a course we think agreeable to the Scriptures, and indicated 
Dy St. Paul's inspired instruction to servants in his First Epistle 
to the Corinthians, chap, vii., verses 20, 21. Eor if servants were 
not to care for their servitude when they might not be free, 
though if they might be free they should use it rather, so neither 
should masters be condemned for not setting them free when they 
might not do so, though if they might they should do so rather. 
The question of the evil of slavery, abstractly considered, you will 
readily perceive, brethren, is a very different matter from a princi- 
ple or rule of Church-discipline to be executed contrary to, and in 
defiance of, the law of the land. Methodism has alwaj T s been (ex- 
cept, perhaps, in the single instance above) eminently loyal and 
promotive of good order; and so we desire it may ever continue to 
be, both in Europe and America. 

With this sentiment we conclude the subject, adding only the 
corroborating language of your noble Missionary Society, by the 
revered and lamented Watson, in its instructions to missionaries, 
published in the Beport of 1833, as follows: 

As in the colonies in which yon are called to labor a great proportion of the 
inhabitants are in a state of slavery, the committee most strongly call to your 

2 



26 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

remembrance what was so fully stated to you when you were accepted as a 
missionary to the West Indies, that your only business is to promote the 
moral and religious improvement of the slaves to whom you may have ac- 
cess, without, in the least degree, in public or private, interfering with their 
civil condition. 

And the same General Conference gives expression 
of its fixed principles of hostility to abolition agita- 
tion in its Pastoral Address. We copy from it a few 
paragraphs : 

It affords us great pleasure to witness the strong tendency which 
develops itself among the Methodists to adhere to the peculiar 
principles which characterized them from the beginning, and to 
remain one and indissoluble. 

Though some have entered into "doubtful disputations," and a 
few of our Societies have been hurtfully agitated, yet, to the honor 
of our enlightened membership, and to the glory of God, would 
we at this time express our solemn conviction that the great mass 
of our people have remained "firm as a wall of brass" amidst the 
commotions of conflicting elements. There seems at this moment 
far less occasion to fear from the causes of dissension than there 
was at the last meeting of this Conference. Indeed, brethren, we 
have no doubt but if we all continue to "walk by the same rule, 
and to mind the same things," in which, in the order of God, we 
have been instructed, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
us," and the enemy, who would divide and scatter in order to de- 
stroy us, will be disappointed. 

Since the commencement of the present session of the General 
Conference, memorials have been presented, principally from the 
Northern and Eastern divisions of the work, some praying for ac- 
tion of the Conference on the subject of slavery, and others asking 
for radical changes in the economy of the Church. The result of 
the deliberations of the committees to whom these memorials had 
a respectful reference, and the final action of the Conference upon 
them, may be seen among the doings of this body, as reported and 
published. 

The issue in several is probably different from what the memo- 
rialists may have thought they had reason to expect; but it is to 
be hoped they will not suppose the General Conference has either 
denied them any legitimate right or been wanting in a proper re- 
spect for their opinions. Such is the diversity of habits of thought, 
manners, customs, and domestic relations among the people of this 
vast Republic, and such the diversity of institutions of the sover- 
eign States of the confederacy, that it is not to be supposed an easy 
task to suit all the incidental circumstances of our economy to the 
views and feelings of the vast mass of minds interested. We pray, 
therefore, that brethren whose views may have been crossed by the 
acts of the Conference will at least give us the credit of having 
acted in good faith, and of not having regarded private ends or 
party interests, but the best good of the whole family of American 
Methodists. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 27 

Another report was elicited and adopted, without 
controversy, at this General Conference — 1840 — which 
so fully interprets the long-standing law of the Church 
in u The Section on Slavery" that it is here given in 
substance; and thus we close the documentary evidence 
advanced to prove that the South advocated nothing in 
18-44 that had not been, witn remarkable unanimity, 
fully confirmed prior to that date, in the ecumenical 
councils of the Church. These all go to prove that if 
slavery was either cause or occasion of the division of 
the Church — to recur to our illustration — it was the 
wolf, and not the lamb, which had stirred up the filthy 
waters. 

A petition was presented from the stewards and oth- 
ers of Westmoreland Circuit, in the Yirginia section 
of the Baltimore Conference, complaining of the ac- 
tion of that Conference in refusing to elect to ordina- 
tion local preachers in that circuit on the single ground 
of their being slave-holders. On this subject a special 
committee was appointed, and their report was adopted, 
as follows : 

The committee, . . . after giving to the subject the atten- 
tion its obvious importance demands, beg leave to report the fol- 
lowing as the result of their deliberations: The particular portion, 
or rather general section, of country in which these remonstrances 
have their origin, although belonging to the Baltimore Conference, 
is found within the limits of the State of Virginia, and the memo- 
rials represent, in strong but respectful terms, that local preachers, 
within the jurisdiction of the Baltimore Conference, but residing 
in the commonwealth of Virginia, have, in considerable numbers, 
and for a succession of years, been rejected as applicants for deacon's 
and elder's orders in the ministry, solely on the ground of their be- 
ing slave-holders, or the owners of slaves. In the memorials re- 
ferred to, it is distinctly stated that election and ordination have 
been withheld from the applicants in question on no other ground, 
or pretense than that of their being the owners of slave property; 
and it is farther argued that the Baltimore Conference avows this 
to be the only reason of the course they pursue, and which is com- 
plained of by the petitioners. The appellants allege, farther, that 
the laws of Virginia relating to slavery forbid emancipation, ex- 
cept under restrictions, and subject to contingencies amounting, to 
all intents and purposes, to a prohibition; and that the Discipline 
of the Cburch having provided for the ordination of ministers thus 
circumstanced, the course pursued by the Baltimore Conference 
operates as an abridgment of right, and therefore furnishes just 
grounds of complaint. The memorialists regard themselves as 



28 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

clearly entitled to the protection of the well-known provisional 
exception to the general rule on this subject found in the Discipline, 
and assume with confidence, and argue with firmness and ability, 
that, no other objection being found to the character of candidates 
for ordination, it is a departure from the plain intendment of the 
law in the case, and a violation of not less express compact than 
of social justice, to withhold ordination for reasons which the pro- 
visions of the law plainly declare are not to be considered as a for- 
feiture of right. 

It is set forth in the argument of the appellants, that, attaching 
themselves to the Church as citizens of Virginia, where, in the ob- 
vious sense of the Discipline, emancipation is impracticable, the 
holding of slaves, or failure to emancipate them, cannot be pleaded 
in bar to the right of ordination, as is the case in States where 
emancipation, as defined and qualified by the rule in the case, is 
found to be practicable. . . . The memorialists advert to the 
fact that we have in the Discipline two distinct classes of legislative 
provision in relation to slavery — the one applying to owners of 
slaves where emancipation is practicable, consistently with the in- 
terests of master and slave, and the other where it is impractica- 
ble without endangering such safety and these interests on the 
part of both. With the former, known as the general rule on 
this subject, the petitioners do not interfere in any way, and are 
content simply to place themselves under the protection of the lat- 
ter as contracting parties with the Church; and the ground of com- 
plaint is that the Church has failed to redeem the pledge of its own 
laws, by refusing or failing to promote to office ministers in whose 
case no disability attaches on the ground of slavery, because the 
disability attaching in other cases is here removed by special pro- 
vision of law, and so far leaves the right of ordination clear and 
undoubted, and hence the complaint against the Baltimore Con- 
ference. 

In farther prosecution of the duty assigned them, your commit- 
tee have carefully examined the law, and inquired into the system 
of slavery as it exists in Virginia, and find the representation of 
the memorialists essentially correct. 

As emancipation under such circumstances is not a requirement 
of Discipline, it cannot be made a condition of eligibility to office. 
An appeal to the policy and practice of the Church for fifty years 
past will show incontestably that, whatever may have been the 
convictions of the Church with regard to this great evil, the nature 
and tendency of the system of slavery, it has never insisted upon 
emancipation in contravention of civil authority; and it therefore 
appears to be a well-settled and long-established principle in the 
polity of the Church that no ecclesiastical disabilities are intended 
to ensue either to the ministers or members of the Church in those 
States where the civil authority forbids emancipation. The gen- 
eral rule, therefore, distinctly and invariably requiring emancipa- 
tion as the ground of right and the condition of claim to ordination, 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 29 

where the laws of the several States admit of emancipation and 
permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, and which, in the judg- 
ment of your committee, should always be carried into effect with 
unyielding firmness, does not apply to your memorialists, and can- 
not, by any fair construction of law, affect their rights. 

Tour committee are unwilling to close this brief view of the sub- 
ject without anxiously suggesting that, as it is one of the utmost 
importance, and of intense delicacy in its application and bearings 
throughout our entire country — involving in greater or less degree 
the hopes and fears, the anxieties and interests of millions — it must 
be expected that great variety of opinions and diversity of convic- 
tion and feeling will be found to exist in relation to it, and most 
urgently call for the exercise of mutual forbearance and reciprocal 
good-will on the part of all concerned. May not the principles 
and causes giving birth and perpetuity to great moral and political 
systems or institutions be regarded as evil, even essentially evil, in 
every primary aspect of the subject, without the implication of 
moral obliquity on the part of those involuntarily connected with 
such systems and institutions, and providentially involved in their 
operation and consequences? . . . And your committee know 
of no reason why the rule is inapplicable, or should not ohtain, in 
relation to the subject of this report. In conclusion, your commit- 
tee would express the deliberate opinion that while the general 
rule on the subject of slavery, relating to those States only whose 
laws admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to en- 
joy freedom, should be firmly and constantly enforced, the exception 
to the general rule, applying to those States where emancipation, 
as defined above, is not practicable, should be recognized and pro- 
tected with equal firmness and impartiality. The committee re- 
spectfully suggest to the Conference the propriety of adopting the 
following resolution: 

Resolved, by the Delegates of the several Annual Conferences in General Conference 
assembled, That, under the provisional exception of the general rule of the 
Church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere own- 
ership of slave property, in States or Territories where the laws do not admit 
of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes 
no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the various grades 
of office known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and can- 
not, therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of right in view of 
such election and ordination. 

I have thus exhibited the avowed attitude of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church upon the subject of slavery 
and slave-holding when the Conference of 1844 assem- 
bled. Down to this period the mission-work among 
the slaves of the South and South-west was progress- 
ing satisfactorily. The colored members and proba- 
tioners had increased from 102,158, in 1840, to 145,409, 
in 1844. Eespecting this work the Bishops, in their 
Quadrennial Address of the latter year, say: 



30 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

Although we have not been able to extend our missions among 
the people of color in the Southern and South-western States ac- 
cording to our ardent desires and the providential openings before 
us, for want of pecuniary means, still we rejoice that we have not 
been compelled to abandon the fields which we have already under 
cultivation, and that we have been enabled to occupy some new and 
very promising ground. It is a matter of gratulation to the 
friends of humanity and religion, and of devout thanksgiving to 
God, that the unhappy excitement which for several years spread 
a dark cloud over our prospects, and weakened our hands and filled 
our hearts with grief, has died away, and almost ceased to blast our 
labors. Confidence in the integrity of our principles, and the pu- 
rity of our motives, which for a time was shaken, is restored. New 
and extensive fields are opening before us, and inviting us to the 
harvest. The conviction of the duty and benefit of giving relig- 
ious instruction to servants is constantly increasing. The self- 
sacrificing zeal of the missionaries is worthy of the cause in which 
they are engaged — the cause of humanity; the cause of the salva- 
tion of souls; the cause of God. Brethren, suffer us to beseech 
you, by the tender mercies of God, by the precious blood of Jesus, 
and by the crying spiritual wants of perishing thousands for whom 
he died, to strengthen the hands and encourage the hearts of your 
fellow-laborers, who are more directly engaged in this blessed 
work, by your ceaseless prayers to God for them. 

There is, blessed be God, no bar in the laws of our country 
to prevent them from receiving religious instruction, or being 
gathered into the fold of God. Here, then, we have an open door. 
We may preach the gospel of Christ to them, unite them in the 
communion of his Church, and introduce them to a participation 
of the blessings of her fellowship, and thus be the instruments of 
their preparation for the riches of the inheritance of the saints of 
glory. This, as ministers of Christ, is our work, and should be our 
glory and joy. This, by the grace of God helping us, we can do; 
but to raise them to equal rights and privileges is not within our 
power. Let us not labor in vain, and spend our strength for 
naught. In this cause we are debtors to both the bond and the 
free — yea, to all men. ... 

While Methodism was thus fulfilling its noble mission 
among the slaves, an agitation was rife in the North 
and East which indicated a speedy revolt against all 
the compromises of the past. The South asked noth- 
ing but to be permitted quietly to do her work, pro- 
posed no change, advocated no pro-slavery measures 
beyond the settled rule of the Church — if that can be 
thus designated — while the other section was clamoring 
for deliverances, at the ensuing General Conference, at 
total variance with those of previous Conferences. If 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 31 

slavery was the instrument of the division of the 
Church, it was not severed by the sword reposing in 
the scabbard of the Southern slave-holder, but by the 
battle-ax wielded by the hand of the Northern Abo- 
litionist. The latter took the initiative in the disrup- 
tion, as will be fully proved hereafter, by denying the 
applicability of the principles avowed by the Confer- 
ence in the report on the Westmoreland petition to a 
high official, and by wresting one of the provisos of 
the "Constitution" of the General Conference from its 
legitimate meaning, and thus applying a prohibition 
on Conference action to the act of an individual — as 
though a man should be tried for assault and battery 
under that constitutional provision that prohibits a 
State from levying war. 

But this history is not complete without noting the 
rise and progress of this damaging agitation in the 
Church. For a full account, I would refer to "The 
Great Secession," chapters x.-xix. ; and I the more 
cheerfully recommend the careful perusal of these 
chapters because the author, even with all his antip- 
athies to the South, held that, in those wild days, 
'•madness ruled the hour" in the New England 
Churches. After showing, in several chapters, how 
rapidly that section was drifting away from the moor- 
ings of original Methodism, he opens chapter xvi. with 
"The Events of 1841," thus: 

As might be expected, ultra- Abolitionism in the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church now began to develop itself by secession. The Abo- 
litionists heretofore, to some extent, seemed to think the whole 
gospel included in the doctrines and measures of anti-slavery so- 
cieties. The Church, Bishops and preachers especially, were put 
down as pro-slavery. [We italicize this word. It, with the con- 
text, furnishes a sermon to those who persist that pro-slavery in- 
stincts pushed the South to separation.] Hence slavery was talked, 
and preached, and prayed about, and little else, making the watch- 
words of party the theme of the class-meeting, the love- feast, and. 
the prayer-meeting, as well as of the rostrum and periodicals. 

Secessions had begun in Ohio in 1839, in New York 
in 1811, and in Michigan in 1811. The seceders organ- 
ized themselves as "Wesleyan Methodists." Dr. El- 
liott tells us (p. 232) that, in New England, 



32 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

The Abolitionists carried their strife into our classes, Sunday- 
schools, and missionary societies, and even into our love-feasts. 
Everywhere they taught that the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
pro-slavery in her councils and administration, especially the Epis- 
copacy. They spared none who were not of" their party; and to 
be of their party it was necessary to agree with them in measures, 
as well as in the principles thus avowed. The result was that they 
succeeded in alienating many from their attachment to the Chinch 
and her wholesome discipline; and, this ligament once sundered, 
they were ready for secession and open hostility. 

In Lowell two preachers, regularly appointed, were 
rejected, and noted Abolitionists called to fill the pul- 
pits. In November, 1842, J. Horton, O. Scott, and 
others withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
After this "the Scottites, as they were called by their 
opponents, or Wesleyans, as they called themselves, 
did their utmost to promote their cause. They pub- 
lished in their paper every case of withdrawal or se- 
duction from the Methodist Episcopal Church. One 
of their favorite headings was, 'The glorious work of 
secession goes on.' " (P. 246.) 

The Providence Conference, in June, 1842, "passed 
resolutions declaring that they were for the destruction 
of slavery, were against the election of a slave-holding 
Bishop, and that they most earnestly longed for the 
approach of the time when the Church shall come up 
from the pollutions of slavery." The New England 
Conference Anti-slavery Society issued an address to 
the members of the Church in their Conference, pro- 
nouncing slavery "the foul whelp of depravity," and 
congratulating themselves on the progress of abolition, 
pronounced against secession from the Church, as an 
anti-slavery measure. They would have slavery fought 
in the Church, because "the Discipline is against 
slavery," and "the true-hearted Methodists urged its 
anti-slavery character with great earnestness." 

Especial hostility was displayed to the idea of elect- 
ing a slave-holder as Bishop. Dr. E. says that "it was 
argued at the South that it must have a slave-holding 
Bishop," but he quotes nothing proving his assertion. 
He quotes Dr. Lee, of Virginia, as uttering a remon- 
strance, through the Richmond Advocate, against the 
measures preparing for the action of the General Con- 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 33 

ference of 1844, "as fraught with mischief and degra- 
dation to the whole Southern portion of the Church;" 
but Dr. L. makes no such demand as is alleged. On 
the contrary, Dr. Capers is quoted as writing that he 
thought another Bishop resident in the South desirable, 
but whether to be taken from "North or South ought 
not to be the question, but, Who is the worthiest man? 
I am bold to say that there are ministers at 
the North who would prove a noble acquisition to any 
office." So far was he, in 1842, from demanding a 
slave-holding Bishop that he "doubts the heart of any 
slave-holder" who would so far compromise his prin- 
ciples as to seek to become an acceptable Bishop to the 
Abolitionists of the North. Dr. Drake, of Mississippi, 
agreed with Dr. C. "Select," he wrote, "the man for 
his qualifications alone. His residence may be easily 
changed, and should be changed, if the interests of the 
work require it." As to the plan of electing a South- 
ern man, unconnected with slavery, Dr. D. wrote: "It 
is a proposition coming from our friends [in the North], 
not the Abolitionists, that we should acquiesce in an 
agreement which would distinctly recognize a difference 
between a slave-holder and one who does not hold 
slaves in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Whatever 
others may do, God forbid that we should ever consent 
to put a mark upon ourselves ! We do not feel that we 
can act otherwise than we do in circumstances in which 
we find ourselves in the providence of Grod, and we 
cannot consent that our brethren should disfranchise 
us when we are not convinced of sin." The stress of 
feeling under which he asserted these manly principles 
is shown when he adds: "As to secession or division, 
they are words that I have never permitted to come 
into my vocabulary. I almost feel like I were com- 
mitting treason to write them here in my study. No 
calamity could so afflict me as to be separated from the 
great body of our common Methodism. Life itself is 
not half so dear as this union. If our brethren cut us 
off, we must submit to it as the last of evils; but the 
sin shall be on their heads, not ours." (P. 251.) Yet 
this "man of noble soul and pure mind," as Dr. E. calls 
him, was driven within two years to vote for a division 
2* 



31 The Disruption of the M. E. Church.* 

of the Church, by those machinations which we have 
just seen so graphically delineated by Dr. Elliott. 

There is nothing here, or elsewhere, to prove that 
the South was demanding a slave-holding Bishop. It 
was but self-respect to resent any discrimination against 
a slave-holder, other things being equal, in compliance 
with abolition demands, when the Discipline so dis- 
tinctly put the relation in the Southern States under 
protection of law, and the General Conference had 
heretofore so far acknowledged the claims of Southern 
slave-holders under that law as to advance them to 
high place in the Church.* 

The excitement in New England proceeded at a 
rapid pace. In 1843 Dr. Bond, the veteran editor of 
the Christian Advocate and Journal, elaborately discussed 
the questions: 

Ought the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
to enact a rule of Discipline by which all slave-holders, whatever 
be the peculiar circumstances of the case, shall be expelled from 
the communion of the Church? 

Or, if it be admitted that there are circumstances which will 
justify a Methodist in holding slaves, then whether it be possible 
to make a rule which, while it will reach all others, shall spare 
those exempt cases? 

He took the negative of both these questions, and 
stated, if he was right, it will follow that whatever a 

* For instance, the General Conference itself had set the example of disre- 
garding the fact of slave-holding as a bar to official position in one residing in 
a slave State. In 1824 the General Conference instructed the Bishops to ap- 
point, in 1826, a Delegate to the British Conference — certainly the highest 
official position in the Church, except that of Bishop, though not ministerial, 
but representative. The Bishops met in Baltimore, in 1826, to do this. Bish- 
ops McKendree (senior Bishop) and Soule nominated Dr. Capers; Bishops 
George and Hedding objected that he was a slave-holder, and nominated Dr. 
Fisk. The former Bishops alleged " that slave-holding should not be a bar to 
any office in the appointment of the Church." Neither side would yield, and 
the election was postponed. Next year Bishop Roberts was present — the other 
Bishops were still of the same mind. Bishop R. would not take the responsi- 
bility of giving the casting vote, and the matter went by default. (See Life of 
Hedding, p. 326.) But at the next General Conference, 1828, Dr. Capers, slave- 
holder' as he was, was chosen Delegate to the British Conference, by a majority 
of ten votes, over that eminent man, Dr. Wilbur Fisk. 

And the General Conference of 1840, on the very day that it decided that " the 
mere ownership of slave property, in States-or Territories where the laws do 
not admit of emancipation or allow the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, 
constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the various 
grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
cannot, therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of right in view of 
such election and ordination," elected the same distinguished Southerner, Dr. 
Capers, General Missionary Secretary for the Southern Division, for the en- 
suing quadriennium. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 35 

man's opinions on the general subject of slavery may 
be, he is not justified in withdrawing from the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church. In maintaining these proposi- 
tions, he argued as follows: 

Secession from a Church is either a sin or a duty. It is a duty 
when we are required to believe what we think to be untrue, or to 
do what we believe to be a sin, as a condition of membership; and 
it is a sin to do so for any lighter reason. The Methodist Episco- 
pal Church has required neither the one nor the other condition in 
respect to slavery; and as the matter of slavery is the ostensible 
reason for withdrawing, the excuse fails them. 

Such a rule of duty should be clearly enjoined by the word of 
God to justif}' the measure; but this has not been shown. Slave- 
holding itself is nowhere, in terms, forbidden in Scripture, though 
the practice was general in the time of our Lord and his apostles; 
yet there is no express prohibition to Christians to hold slaves, 
though there are express exhortations to slaves to obey their mas- 
ters, and to make this a matter of conscience. 

Ought the Churches, whose duty it is to carry the gospel to all, 
whether bond or free, to close the doors of access by a proclamation 
of war against the civil authorities of sovereign States, and by an- 
nouncement that they intend to propagate doctrines hostile to, and 
subversive of, the political relations which these States have estab- 
lished? This would be equivalent to a total abandonment of all 
purposes to carry the gospel either to the slaves or to the masters. 
If the Methodist Episcopal Church is bound to cut herself off from 
the opportunity of preaching the gospel to the colored people of 
the South, every other Church is equally bound. Who, then, must 
preach the gospel to them? 

But the Southern people, white and colored, are perfectly safe 
with the ministry of men whom the seceders denounce as wicked, 
because they have the good sense and firmness to resist their pro- 
posed innovations upon our economy. The Southern ministers are 
not excelled in piety, zeal, talents, and usefulness. Men of rare 
talents have spent years among the slaves on the rice plantations, 
exposed to all the ordinary privations of missionary labor, with 
the additional danger to health and life of the deadly malaria from 
the swamps, acted on by the intense heat of a Southern sun. 

Besides, no other Christian Church, except some of little or no 
influence, has adopted such a rule of discipline as that contended 
for. The British Wesleyans had no such rule. They had slave- 
holders in their Societies till the moment of universal eman- 
cipation. 

The case of Philemon and Onesimus, too, Dr. Bond 
contended, was at variance with the proposed rule. 

In another article Dr. Bond proceeds to show that 
there were slave-holders in the primitive Church, and 



36 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

he quotes largely from commentators and others to 
prove the point. He then concludes his argument 
thus : 

"We have only endeavored to show that the Church now, like 
the Church in the apostolic times, cannot lawfully exclude slave- 
holders from the Church, as for a crime which will exclude a man 
from the kingdom of grace and glory. The sinfulness of slave- 
holding depends upon the circumstances of the case, and no gen- 
eral rule can meet their circumstances. 

Eut neither argument nor warning, counsel nor en- 
treaty, stayed the agitation. The conventional move- 
ment took a fresh start in the winter of 1843-4. Some 
of the Methodist Abolitionists of New England seemed 
determined to have a pretty general convention before 
the next session of the General Conference. It was 
the opinion of Dr. Bond that, considering the ill effects 
of former conventions, this attempt appeared to be so 
reckless a disregard of the peace and prosperity of the 
Church, so mad and fanatic a procedure, that " he aw- 
fully feared a judicial blindness had come upon some 
of our preachers and people in New England." (P. 
269.) The movement was arrested, " but two small, 
sickly" conventions were held — one in the New Eng- 
land and one in the Yermont Conference. The former 
petitioned the General Conference "so to change the 
tenth section as 'to make all slave-holding inconsistent 
with membership in the Church;'" the latter declared 
that "it ought to be expunged at the next General 
Conference." Memorials to the Conference were pre- 
pared, circulated, and signed extensively in accord 
with these opinions. If slavery was the cause of the 
division of the Church, did it become so by movements 
in the South, or by those in the North? Let impartial 
readers decide. 

Dr. Elliott closes his review of this period by giving 
"the state of parties in the Church" in the opening of 
the General Conference of 1844, as follows: 

There was what may be called the Church proper [!], or the 
Conferences in the Middle States — New York and the West — who 
maintained the Discipline as it is, and were determined it should 
not be altered or practically nullified [?]. These were strongly 
anti-slavery, but not Abolitionists, in the recent American use of 
that term. They were not pro-slavery, or apologists for slavery, 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 37 

though they believed men might be slave-holders without being 
sinners on that account. 

There was the Abolition party in the Church, confined princi- 
pally to the New England Conferences. These, for the most part, 
believed all slave-holding to be a sin, and all slave-holders to be 
sinners; or they so taught, defined, and made abstract distinctions 
of such kind that they virtually, if not intentionally, placed all 
slave-holders in the class of sinners. The} r also thought the 
Church to be greatly corrupted in the South with the sin of 
slavery. 

There was also the Southern party, who, as a whole, at this 
period, we cannot place in the list of pro-slavery men ; but they were 
not truly anti-slavery. They seem to have yielded to the pro- 
slavery influence around them so far as to give up, or hold loosel} T , 
their anti-slavery sentiments. They yielded, or began to yield, the 
things of God to Cesar; they ceased to claim as a right the great 
principle that the civil power is supreme only in civil matters, and 
the ecclesiastical power is supreme in moral and religious matters. 
As a claim, too, they set up a plea for a slave-holding Bishop. 

We have seen that this last assertion is unsustained 
by testimony, and we shall see that even the defense 
of Bishop Andrew by the Southern Delegates did not 
turn npon the claim that the South wanted a slave- 
holding Bishop, but that he being already a Bishop, 
when by certain fortuitous events he became a slave- 
owner, the law of the Church protected him in the re- 
lation. "While we do not concede that the above analysis 
of parties is wholly correct in other particulars, yet 
there are points in it which deserve notice. 

1. The concession that the " Southern party could 
not, as a whole, at this 'period'' be placed "in the list 
of pro-slavery men." If not, how was the division of 
1844 caused by slavery? The two other parties named 
were the one Anti-slavery, the other Abolition, and this 
third party — a minority of the whole — not Pro-slavery ; 
and yet among them they let or made pro-slavery di- 
vide the Church! So it is now charged. 

2. The sentence distinguishing between the suprem- 
acy of the civil and ecclesiastical power is very like 
the Ultramontane doctrine set forth by Dr. Manning, 
Eomanist "Archbishop of Westminster," in his pamph- 
let on Cesarism and Ultramontanism. He says : 

There can be no Ce?arism where Christ reigns. Christianity has 
limited the sphere of the jurisdiction of the civic power. . . . 
The Catholic Church has established upon earth a legislature, a 



38 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

tribunal, and an executive, independent of all human authority. 
. . . The Church is separate and supreme. ... It alone 
can decide questions where its power is in contact with the civil 
power — that is, in mixed questions; for it alone can determine 
how far its own divine office or its own divine trust -enters into 
and is implicated in such questions; and it is precisely that ele- 
ment in any mixed question of disputed jurisdiction which belongs 
to a higher order and higher tribunal.* 

How wholly this doctrine of Dr. Elliott, and of Arch- 
bishop Manning, is at variance with that of the Church, 
prior to 1844, may be seen by reference to the deliver- 
ances of the General Conference, which have been 
fully quoted heretofore. Nor do these utterances agree 
with St. Paul's words : " Let every soul be subject .unto 
the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: 
the powers that be are ordained of God. . . . For 
rulers are not a terror to good works," etc. Rom. xiii. 
Nor with St. Peter's : " Submit yourselves to every ordi- 
nance of man, for the Lord's sake; whether it be to 
the king, as supreme, or unto governors," etc. 1 Pet. 
ii. 13, etc. Do these passages teach that the Christian 
should never seek to change, or modify, or control the 
civil authority? No — but what he thus does is done 
by him as a citizen, not by virtue of his Church-rela- 
tions, nor under the supremacy of any spiritual or ec- 
clesiastical authority. Citizens had a right to urge 
upon the Government a change in the laws respecting 
shivery, if they thought it right or wise; but the 
Church had no right to add disabilities not accepted 
when citizens first became Church-members, tending 
to force them to such interference with the civil au- 
thorities, or else threatening loss of their original ec- 
clesiastical rights. 

I close by summing up, thus: 

* How well does Dean Stanley answer these high assumptions: " The prin- 
ciple lies deep in human nature, and in the essence of Christianity, that in 
the great institutions of society there is nothing common or unclean; that 
the natural ordinances of the family and State are as truly ordained of God as 
those that are more strictly ecclesiastical; that in this sense the nation is 
greater than the Church — that is, the nation, in the sense of a society compre- 
hending all the diverse elements of social life, is greater'than the Church, in 
the sense of the clerical corporation which, great and heneficent as it is, com- 
prehends only a few." So long, then, as " Cesar's " law u law — whether just 
or unjust— we have the word and example of Christ, and of the apostles, in he- 
half of ohedience. If, like Peter, our conscience impel us to "obey God 
rather than man," we must do it in full view of the penalty, and submit to it, 
as the martyrs did — but such obedience to God may be evoked quite as prop- 
erly by an unjust law of the Church as by one of Cesar. 



The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 39 

1. The principles and practices of the Church re- 
specting slavery and slave-holding were definitely set- 
tled and uttered to the world in its Discipline, and in 
declarations emanating from its highest judicatory. 

2. In 1844 the Southern Delegates asked for — wished 
for — no change, either in law, declaration, or practice. 
New England Methodists, taking advanced ground 
against slavery, did ask for changes from the General 
Conference of 1844. 

3. But such demand was not made a question be- 
tween the North and the South, and the division of 
the Church was not a consequence of such a claim on 
the one hand, or of its resistance, on the other.* 

4. Neither slavery, pro-slavery, anti-slavery, nor ab- 
olitionism, in themselves considered, was the immedi- 
ate cause of the division of the Church. The contest 
which originated at this Conference between the two 
parties, had it been decided in any way, finally and 
forever, would not have settled any of these great 
questions. The abolition agitation in New England 
excited some parties in the Church to seek for a new 
deliverance on slavery from this General Conference, 
and those desiring it took advantage of a merely inci- 
dental circumstance in the relations of one of its Bish- 
ops, that played well into their hands, and, having 
gained over to their views a sufficient number of the 
party first named above by Dr. Elliott, these together 
initiated and carried measures, against the prayers, 
warnings, and remonstrances of the South, believed 
by it to be illegal and unconstitutional. This action 
resulted in the division of the Church, as had been 
foretold; and, under like circumstances, any other in- 
cidental question — that respecting Freemasonry, for 
instance, which at one time produced intense and far- 
reaching political excitement — had it aroused similar 
religious and sectional animosities, would have had a 

*The Final Report of the Committee on Slavery, as adopted in 1844, stated 
the leading topics offered for their consideration in the various resolu- 
tions as follows : "First. The petitioners pray that the resolutions on the testi- 
mony of persons of color, passed at the last General Conference, be rescinded. 
Second, That this body would not elect a slave-holding Bishop. Third, That 
the General Conference would take measures entirely to separate slavery from 
the Church. Upon these points your committee deem it inexpedient for the 
General Conference to take any action farther than that which is recommended 
in their first report" [respecting testimony, etc.]. 



40 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

like result. But could it have then been said that 
Masonry, or the Masons, divided the Church? I trow 
not. Neither did slavery divide it; and not slavery, 
but the act of separation itself, originated the controver- 
sies that to this day impend between the two Method- 
isms. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 41 



CHAPTER II. 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1844. 

HAYING- ascertained the status of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in respect to slavery, we are 
the better prepared to understand how the opposition 
of the Southern Delegates to the action of 1844, in 
Bishop Andrew's case, was thoroughly grounded upon 
principle. I now proceed to set forth that action. 

As has been said, James O. Andrew was not a slave- 
holder when he was elected to the Episcopacy. It is 
claimed that but for this fact he could not have been 
elected. This may be true or false — it mattered not, 
in 1844. He was elected, and was henceforth entitled 
to all the rights of other members of the Episcopal 
College. 

In course of time, two slaves were devised to him, 
and he was a slave-holder for some years before it was 
ascertained that he was unfitted for the Episcopacy — 
disqualified as a " General Superintendent " — by his 
holding slaves. Manifestly the number held made all 
the diiference; for in January, 1844, he married a 
second time — married now a lady owning slaves as 
legatee of her first husband. Immediately afterward 
he parted with ownership in these slaves, by settling 
them upon his wife. I need not detail all the particu- 
lars, extenuating or otherwise, of Bishop Andrew's 
connection with slavery; these are well known by his 
own statements on the subject. He acknowledged that 
he was a slave-holder — or, as he said, stating the cir- 
cumstances: "I am a slave-holder, and I cannot help 
myself." 



42 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

The fact of Bishop Andrew's being a slave-holder 
was now bruited abroad. Notoriety was given to it, 
as is generally believed, by Br. Curry, then of the 
Georgia Conference, in correspondence on the subject 
with leading men in the North; so that by the time 
the General Conference met in New York, May 1, 1844, 
the Abolitionists were considerably excited about a 
" slave-holding Episcopacy." It was said that this re- 
lation, though in truth it had long existed, disqualified 
him for presiding in such Conferences as would not 
tolerate a slave-holding Bishop, and that he must va- 
cate the Superintendency. The rumor, and the threat- 
ened consequence, created intense excitement. The 
Rev. James Porter (New England Conference) informed 
a "prominent actor" in the subsequent proceedings 
that New England wanted, among other things, "that 
Bishop Andrew should be required to purge himself 
of slavery or vacate the episcopal office." He was 
promised by this gentleman that the Baltimore Con- 
ference would go with New England in carrying its 
measures. Mr. P. says (Meth. Q. Bev., April, 1871) that 
the Abolitionists achieved much in thus avoiding prom- 
inence "in pushing the measures agreed upon " — put- 
ting the "laboring oar" into the hands of conservatives. 

On May 7 an appeal was entered in behalf of the Rev. 
F. A. Harding against the Baltimore Conference, which 
had suspended him "from his. ministerial standing for 
refusing to manumit certain slaves which came into 
his possession by marriage." This case offered a ques- 
tion of similar import to that which arose respecting 
Bishop Andrew, and necessarily it was debated and 
decided with the latter constantly in view. It was de- 
cided May 11 — the Baltimore Conference being sus- 
tained by a vote of 117 to 56. 

Meanwhile, abolition and anti-slavery petitions, res- 
olutions, addresses, from individuals, Churches, Quar- 
terly and Annual Conferences, and conventions, were 
pouring into the Conference. Some asked one thing, 
some another, many that the Episcopacy should be 
purged of slavery, etc. The excitement ran high on 
both sides. 

On May 14 Dr. Capers (South Carolina Conference), 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 43 

seconded by Dr. Olin (New York Conference), offered 
the following resolution: 

In view of the distracting agitation which has so long prevailed 
on the subject of slavery and abolition, and especially the difficul- 
ties under which we labor, in the General Conference, on account 
of the relative position of our brethren, North and South, on this 
perplexing question; therefore, 

Resolved, That a committee of six [as amended] be appointed to 
confer with the Bishops, and report within two days, as to the pos- 
sibility of adopting some plan, and what, for the permanent pacifi- 
cation of the Church. 

After some deeply affecting remarks from Dr. Olin, 
respecting the disturbed state of the Church, and a 
few from others, the committee was appointed: Capers, 
Olin, Winans, Early, Hamline, and Crandall. 

Dr. Durbin moved that the morrow be observed as a 
day of fasting and humiliation before God, and prayer 
for his blessing upon these efforts. Adopted, and the 
day was so observed. 

The committee met, and the Northern and Southern 
Delegates also met, separately, at its request, to confer 
together; but all came to naught; and, on May 18, 
Bishop Soule reported that, after a calm and deliberate 
investigation of the subject submitted, the committee 
were unable to agree upon any plan of compromise to 
reconcile the views of the Northern and Southern 
Conferences. The committee was discharged. 

On May 20 J. A. Collins (Baltimore Conference) 
offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Epis- 
copacy to ascertain if one of the Bishops had become 
connected with slavery, and to report the facts of the 
case on the next day. The committee obeyed by 
bringing in a report consisting mostly of Bishop An- 
drew's statement, made to them in writing.* We have 
already given the facts. Beport laid on table, and 
made the order of the day for the morrow. 

On May 22 it was called up, and A. Griffith and J. 
Davis (Baltimore Conference) took the "laboring oar" 
— by presenting a preamble reciting several facts and 
principles, some not contested, others open to contro- 

*It may be remarked, in passing, that there was no accusation, no trial, no 
testimony taken. Bishop Andrew was asked by the committee what they 
wanted to know, and he told them how he had become an owner of slaves, 
and put the facts in writing. 



44 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

versy, and closing with an affectionate request to 
Bishop Andrew to resign his episcopal office. Then 
a debate opened which raged for many days — one that 
has scarce been surpassed, in the history of forensic 
disputations, for brilliancy and power. 

On May 23 the now celebrated "Finley Resolution" 
was offered as a substitute by J. B. Finley and J. M. 
Trimble (Ohio Conference), which, after a -brief pre- 
amble, said: 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he 
[Bishop Andrew] desist from the exercise of his omce so long as 
this impediment remains. 

The "impediment" had been defined — his having 
become " connected with slavery by marriage and 
otherwise." 

This resolution was discussed from day to day, until 
May 30, when, after an ineffectual call for the "main 
question," Bishop Hedding suggested that the Confer- 
ence hold no afternoon session, and thus allow the 
Bishops time to consult together, with the hope that 
they might be able to offer a plan of adjusting present 
difficulties. " The suggestion was received with gen- 
eral and great cordiality." 

And at this juncture the storm might, perhaps, have 
been allayed, but for what may be called. a conspiracy 
on the part of the New England Delegates. 

In the Methodist Quarterly Review, as above quoted, 
we are told by Dr. Porter, one of the number, " that 
the Abolitionists regarded this as a most alarming 
measure. Accordingly the Delegates of the New Eng- 
land Conferences were immediately called together, 
and, after due deliberation, unanimously signed a paper 
declaring in substance that it was their solemn con- 
viction that if Bishop Andrew should be left by the 
General Conference in the exercise of episcopal func- 
tions, it would break up most of the New England 
Conferences; and that the only way to be holden to- 
gether would be to secede in a body, and invite Bishop 
Hedding to preside over them." 

Bishop Hedding could not be seen and informed of 
this action before the Bishops met; and as the threat- 
ening secessionists were afraid, as they say, to call him 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 45 

out of the council — believing that it could be construed 
and used in a way to defeat their object — he could not 
be hindered from signing the recommendation of the 
Bishops offered on the following day. The Bishops, 
stating that it was apparent that a decision on the res- 
olutions offered, •■whether affirmatively or negatively, 
will most extensively disturb the peace and harmony 
of the wide-spread brotherhood," recommended the 
postponement of farther action in the premises till the 
next General Conference. This would afford time for 
the entire Church to give its opinion on the matter in 
hand. AThen this paper was called for consideration, 
Bishop Hedding withdrew his name from it. He said 
that he had signed it without persuasion, because he 
thought it would be a peace measure ; but he now be- 
lieved this to be a mistake, from some facts that had 
come to his knowledge — doubtless the movement and 
threat of the Xew England Delegates. This peace 
measure was then laid on the table, by 95 to 84 — the 
South resisting this action as one man. It saw then 
that the last hope for Southern Methodism, in that 
General Conference, had fled. 

On June 1st Finley's nondescript Resolution was 
adopted by 111 yeas to 69 nays. Of the minority. 
fifty-seven members were from slave-holding* Confer- 
ences (including Baltimore), and twelve from other 
Conferences in the Xorth. One Southern Delegate, a 
Xorthern transfer, voted "aye." 

On Monday. June 3d, H. Slicer and T. B. Sargent 
moved the following: 

1. Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that 
the vote of Saturday last, in the ease of Bishop Andrew, be un- 
derstood as advisory only, and not in the light of a judicial 
mandate. 

2. Resolved, That the final disposition of Bishop Andrew's case 
be postponed until the General Conference of 1848, in conformity 
with the suggestions of the Bishops on Friday, 31st May. 

These resolutions were laid on the table, by a vote 
of 75 to 68. 

On a subsequent day the Bishops, desiring to know 
the precise status of Bishop Andrew, as fixed by the 

-This designation is not literally accurate, but it is used because it is con- 
venient and will not he misunderstood. 



46 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

action of the Conference, asked of it "official" instruc- 
tion on certain points, and that body answered as fol- 
lows : 

1. Resolved, as the sense of this Conference, That Bishop An- 
drew's name stand in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and Discipline as 
formerly. 

Carried — ayes 155, nays 17. 

2. Resolved, That the rule in relation to the support of a Bishop 
and his family applies to Bishop Andrew. 

Carried — ayes 152, nays 14. 

3. Resolved, That whether in any, and, if in any, in what, work 
Bishop Andrew is to be employed, is to be determined by his own 
decision and action in relation to the previous action of the Con- 
ference in his case. 

Carried — ayes 103, nays 67. 

And here the Conference action respecting Bishop 
Andrew closed. The Southern Delegates resisted this 
summary aclion to the last, as violative of law, justice, 
and Constitution ; and it now remains to vindicate their 
op£>osition by a thorough examination of the constitu- 
tional and legal principles on which the majority 
avowed and acted in this transaction; and, also, its 
theory of the relation generally of the Bishops to the 
General Conference. The subject, thus naturally di- 
viding itself, will be considered in three separate 
chapters. 



The Disruption of the M.. E. Church. 47 



CHAPTER III. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE GENERAL 
CONFERENCE. 

THE subject before us is, The claim of constitutional 
powers, made by the majority in 1844, to deal sum- 
marily with Bishop Andrew. Dr. Hamline was their 
leading champion, and his was considered the great 
speech of the occasion. It is said that it made him a 
Bishop. Its eloquence, in parts, is not to be denied; 
but it is as sophistical as it is eloquent, as I think can 
be made manifest. To sift it will be to examine thor- 
oughly the Constitution and law on which the General 
Conference claimed to base its action. 

The constitutional provision that was relied upon is : 

The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules 
and regulations for our Church, under the following limitations 
and restrictions — namely: . . . 

They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our govern- 
ment; so as to do away with Episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our 
itinerant General Superintendency. . . . 

This is part of the fundamental law, denning the 
powers of the General Conference, generally called the 
"Constitution" — or, more exactly, the Constitution of 
the G-eneral Conference; but this is not all of the Con- 
stitution of the Church. The "Articles of Religion," the 
"present existent and established standards of doc- 
trine," the "Episcopacy," the "itinerant G-eneral Su- 
perintendency," the "General Rules of the United So- 
cieties," the privilege of ministers, preachers, and 
members to regular trial and appeal, are of the Consti- 
tution. All rules and regulations, also, which the Gen- 



IS The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

eral Conference of 1808 — when a Delegated General 
Conference was instituted — left in its Discipline, being 
enacted by a primary Church-court, were of the orig- 
inal Constitution of the Church, and are of it yet, 
unless abrogated or altered by subsequent General 
Conferences. Among these is, " What may we reason- 
ably believe to be God's design in raising up the 
preachers called Methodists? Ans. To reform the 
continent, and to spread scriptural holiness over these 
lands." This was the fundamental reason given for 
the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
1784, and the prescript was never repealed — though 
removed in 1790 from the body of the Discipline 
and placed in "The Bishops' Address," where it yet 
remains, in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. So, too, the "fourth section " — showing how a 
Bishop is constituted, what are his duties, and how, in 
case of immorality, he may be suspended in the inter- 
val of a General Conference — was of the Constitution. 
It is presumed that he will be there tried, though 
nothing more was said on this entire subject, except, 
"To whom is a Bishop amenable for his conduct? Ans. 
To the General Conference, who have the power to ex- 
pel him for improper conduct, if they see it necessary." 

Besides this section, there was no law that could 
possibly apply to the case, except the law cited on 
page 20, which see. In these citations we have all of 
the Discipline vital to this discussion. 

Dr. Hamline attempted first to prove the constitu- 
tionality of the Finley Resolution, which reads as fol- 
lows : 

"Whereas, The Discipline of our Church forbids the doing any- 
thing calculated to destroy our itinerant General Superintendency; 
and, whereas, Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery, 
by marriage and otherwise, and this act having drawn after it cir- 
cumstances which, in the estimation of this General Conference, 
will greatly embarrass the exercise of his office as an itinerant 
General Superintendent, if not, in some places, entirely prevent it; 
therefore, 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that he 
desist from the exercise of his office so long as this impediment re- 
mains. 

It had been claimed that "expediency" sufficiently 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 49 

vindicated the action here proposed; but Dr. H. said 
that the argument from "expediency" was out of 
place if the action was unconstitutional, for it was not 
expedient to violate law. He considered this a man- 
damus measure. It suspended the Bishop until he 
should effect a disconnection with slavery. It wrought 
a suspension or deposition for "improper conduct" — 
"a summary removal from office," not from the minis- 
try. Ordained preachers cannot be expelled from the 
ministry summarily, or for improper conduct, except 
when, after frequent admonitions, they "refuse to re- 
form," and thus show "a criminal state of mind." But 
a pastor, or Presiding Elder, or steward, or class-leader, 
may be removed from a higher to a lower office, or 
from office altogether, by a superior, without notice, trial, 
or cause assigned. The principles which apply to members 
and preachers should govern with regard to Bishops. They 
ought not to be expelled from the ministry without due 
notice and trial. But, as with others, so they, too, may 
be deposed from office summarily, and for improprieties 
which, if even innocent in themselves, hinder their 
usefulness or render their ministrations a calamity. 
ISTor is there need of specific law. "If there were no 
express rule for deposing a Bishop, we should still be 
competent to depose," "because the Constitution confers 
the power, and that is paramount to all our rules and 
regulations." All ranks of officers are subjected to 
summary removals from office for any thing unfitting 
that office, or that renders its exercise unwholesome to 
the Church, up to the point where the officer has no 
superior — which never happens with us, because the 
General Conference, under certain restrictions, few and 
simple, is the depository of all supreme* legislative, 
judicial, and executive power. Therefore, the General 
Conference has power directly from the Constitution, 
which is a catholic grant, embracing all, beyond these 
few restrictions, to try a Bishop for crime, and to de- 
pose him summarily for "improper conduct," without 

*Dr. H. was afterward driven to explain that "supreme" — responsible to 
no higher authority — is not "absolute" — independent of law. But his appli- 
cation of the term here makes supremacy ahsolutism, when a Bishop can 
be summarily deposed, before the Conference has passed a law for its 
guidance, etc. 

3 



50 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

first passing a law for its guidance — or, as he says, 
"passing a rule declaring its authority." 

This is a correct digest of Dr. Hamline's argument 
on the constitutional powers of the General Confer- 
ence. These principles are expanded, illustrated, and 
applied in many ways, and I shall discuss them in the 
light Dr. H. throws on them. The entire argument 
hinges upon the propositions found in the last three 
sentences of the above paragraph. 

As to the powers of the General Conference, they 
are supreme in legislation, except as six restrictions 
bind it — under a charter older, however, than the Con- 
stitution of the General Conference, namely, the Con- 
stitution of the Church, which declares the essence of 
its being as an organization, that its "design" is "to re- 
form the continent," etc. To do this, it can make all 
rules and regulations necessary (save as restricted); 
and to do this more effectually than when under the 
jurisdiction of the original General Conference, the 
General Conference of 1844 placed the Church under a 
divided general jurisdiction — the end to be attained 
and the means used alike in both. Under these limit- 
ations, I grant the supreme legislative functions of the 
General Conference. 

But Dr. H. confuses the subject by citing, as its ex- 
ecutive, what are only its legislative functions. He 
presumes, rightly, that all will grant it legislative and 
judicial powers. He thinks he may be "approaching 
debatable ground" when claiming for it "supreme ex- 
ecutive functions;" but if he "can provoke truth and 
gather instruction from others," he will venture leav- 
ing " a bridge of retreat, if hemmed in at last, to that 
discreet refuge." 

He argues that the General Conference has supreme 
executive functions because it is "the fountain" of all 
supreme executive authority. True, he says there are 
"reservoirs of this ministerial authority" between the 
fountain and the membership, as the Episcopacy and 
the pastorship, while class-leaders are small channels 
conveying to every man's heart the disciplinary influ- 
ence of the Church. The General Conference has, 
truly, "full power to make all rules and regulations " ere- 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 51 

ating "the machinery,'" as Dr. H. says, of a Church-ad- 
ministration— -the executive or ministerial officers "for 
cultivating the fields of Methodism." But, in the nat- 
ure of the case, it cannot be that machinery — execute 
its own orders — impart to others executive functions, 
and yet retain them — impart, resume, retain, at will. 
The healthful stream of executive administration can- 
not be in the fountain, reservoir, channel, all at once — 
or flow in and out of the fountain — well, I cannot 
carry out the figure — how does the fountain empty the 
reservoir and get "the stream" back into itself? 

The simple truth is, the General Conference legislates 
the executive or ministerial agents of the Church into 
existence — not because it has executive, but legislative, 
powers. It is hard to conceive how any body of men 
can execute its own laws, except as a mob, or a posse 
comitatus; but it can, by law, make its own members, 
or others, its ministerial agents, and they can do what 
is impossible to their principal. The General Confer- 
ence has no executive power. There resides in it only a 
potentiality, which, by legislation, becomes an actual power 
in its agents ; or, to borrow an illustration from science, 
the legislative power residing in itself is "converted" 
into administrative power in its agents — one of whom 
may administer it in the pastorate or eldership; an- 
other in an agency; another in a secretaryship; another 
still in the Episcopate — and these may, through legis- 
lation, receive, from time to time, more or fewer pow- 
ers, down to the extinction of all power not theirs 
from a source above the General Conference — the Con- 
stitution. The functions residing in itself only poten- 
tially it makes real in these executive officers by 
legislation, and they can do (execute) what no General 
Conference can — the work of agent, pastor, Bishop. 
And they have vested rights in this transferred power 
until their functions cease by completed performance, 
or when the term of service expires, or the incumbent 
becomes physically, mentally, or morally unfit for the 
work assigned. But these limitations, or disqualifica- 
tions, are not to be ascertained or declared "summa- 
rily," but by principles of equity, according to "rules 
and regulations," under which the office, with its spe- 



52 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

cific duties, came into existence. When Dr. H. says 
that a Bishop derives his official authority from the 
General Conference, by and under the " fourth section," 
by statute, and not by the Constitution and Kestrictive 
Articles, he was upon the verge of the truth I here 
maintain. It is derived through a "regulation" or 
statute, truly, and from the original constituency, which 
made both the delegated General Conference and its 
Constitution, with a j)rovision conserving the Episco- 
pacy against even its power. 

But Dr. H. maintains that, as the executive functions 
of the General Conference are supreme, it can withhold 
or confer, and resume them at will. I maintain, on 
the contrary, that it has no executive power— that it 
can do nothing of this sort, except as a legislature, and 
by law; and that all its laws must conform to the 
fundamental law of the Church cited above; and so it 
can do nothing merely at will. In its legislation, it is 
itself under law. The latter proposition needs no 
proof. The meaning of the term "executive" proves 
the former. An executive power is a power to complete, 
to make effectual or operative, legislative or judicial 
action. The General Conference cannot withhold — must 
confer — executive functions — transmute its potentiality 
into an actual power; or, by its laches, vacate what is 
its prime function — the conservation of the Church. 
The details only of the transmutation are within its 
will — the number, character, duties, qualifications, per- 
sons, etc., of its ministerial servitors, where the su- 
preme law does not fix these, or bar its settlement of 
details. 

Nor can the General Conference resume its delegated 
powers at will. It cannot recall the powers it has con- 
ferred, except for legitimate cause, until their legiti- 
mate term is reached. And in the exercise of power 
over its ministerial officers, while it may add to or take 
from them some of their adventitious powers, those 
added must not be contradictory, nor those withdrawn 
essential, to their official functions as derived from 
fundamental law. So, having conferred powers, it 
cannot resume them at will. Dr. H. virtually concedes 
this when he says that the whole "fourth section," except 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 53 

the power to ordain, might perhaps be constitutionally 
expunged ; and this power, too, probably, by expung- 
ing the words "and the laying on of hands," etc. But 
what would be the Episcopacy — which cannot be " done 
away" — without power to ordain? If, therefore, Dr. 
H.'s premise, that the General Conference can resume 
the powers it has conferred, sanctions such destructive 
results, must it not be abandoned? It is something, 
however, to get the confession that the resumption is 
not at will, but by expunging a rule now in the way 
of will. 

Kor has the General Conference supreme executive 
powers because it is supreme in "administration." 
This is attempted to be proved by the fact, (1) that 
the General Conference inspects and passes judgment 
on all the journalized acts of all the Annual Confer- 
ences; (2) that it subjects the administration of the 
Bishops, quadrennially, to a severe investigation, and 
approves or disapproves it. But neither of these proc- 
esses is executive or administrative. What is thus 
found to be erroneous, though it may be condemned, is 
not corrected as to the past, unless it come before the 
Conference by some other presentation of facts. These 
are inquisitorial precepts — an inquest — and they belong 
to the judicial functions of the Conference. And they 
are to be directed either by the legislation of that body 
or, perhaps more generally, by the fundamental Church 
Constitution. This inquest cannot go a step beyond 
the warrant of constitutional law without usurpation. 

Even if the General Conference be the "fountain" 
of ministerial authority, its supremacy is put under ar- 
rest by its own legislation ; it can send out its author- 
ity only through the channels of law; it can recall or 
resume it only through the same channels. It cannot 
exercise even its simplest, least complicated legislative 
powers, except by rule; it can do nothing at will. Its 
will is controlled by the "Eules of Order" — fixed to 
guide its routine duty; by the Constitution and its re- 
strictions, imposed by the original constituent "preach- 
erhood;" by the fundamental Church Constitution, 
which they intrusted to its keeping, and which defined 
and bounded its powers; and by all the rules and reg- 



54 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

illations that body has itself legislated into its Disci- 
pline. 

And if its legislative power is thus restricted, that 
more fearful judicial power it exercises when it passes 
upon the character and conduct of its ministerial func- 
tionaries, cannot surely be exercised at will. What pro- 
tection, in that case, has the individual — what appeal, 
what recourse against the prejudice, passion, tyranny, 
of this powerful and irresponsible oligarchy? Under 
the impulse of a temporary madness it is capable of 
becoming a monster — fit Protestant counterpart of the 
hideous Spanish Inquisition. It can never be set too 
deep in the Methodist heart that its General Confer- 
ence is governed by law — cannot act at will. It may 
alter or repeal its laws, but while they remain on its 
statute-book this great body is as much bound by 
them as the humblest member in the land. It may 
delegate power (as Dr. H. says) to the pastor, to 
change inefficient leaders; to the Presiding Elder, in 
the intervals of Conference, to change a pastor " in 
charge " to an " assistant; " to the Bishop or Presiding 
Elders, to remove preachers or elders, at irregular 
periods, for cause sufficient to himself; but all, these 
acts are provided for by statute; and when the incum- 
bent receives his office, under the condition the law 
imposes, he knows his liabilities. Besides, all these 
have a remedy by appeal to a judicial body, to whom 
each officer is amenable. This body sits in inquest 
on his acts, and, if illegitimate, they may meet him 
there; or if he act rashly, oppressively, unadvisedly, 
or unjustly, there may be censure for the official 
wrong-doer, even if there be no remedy for the subject 
of his wrong-doing. Here is a safeguard for the 
rights of the humblest. But let a G-eneral Conference 
act without law — act at will — and who knows what to 
expect? There is no appeal from its passion, or preju- 
dice, or injustice, or from what may be less culpable, 
but not less frequently the tyrannous element in large 
irresponsible bodies — its intolerance. Not even pub- 
lic opinion can reach it. It adjourns, dissolves, it is 
no longer; and its constituent members can never be 
made to feel, as individuals, the odium it may justly 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 55 

merit as an organized body. "If it err," says Dr. H., 
" its unwholesome error is incurable, except by the 
vis medicatrix — the medicinal virtue of its own judicial 
energies." But what if that be poisoned by passion, 
prejudice, or fanaticism! 

Again: There are some powers the General Confer- 
ence can never recall, even by revoking its legislation. 
It may close up for the future some channel of admin- 
istrative functions, emanating from itself; it may place 
some whom it has invested with power where they 
need never exercise it, but the power itself it cannot 
recall by its enactments. It may revoke the law or- 
daining local preachers, but not the functions of those 
already ordained under the law; it may locate an or- 
dained pastor, or assign to one duties where it never 
devolves upon him officially to administer the ordi- 
nances, but it cannot legislate him out of the diaco- 
nate or eldership. I do not say here it cannot unmake 
a Bishop, for I am conforming my argument through- 
out to the opinion, so prevalent on the occasion I am 
reviewing, that a Bishop is only such a mutable func- 
tionary of the General Conference as its Secretary, or 
a Book Agent, a Delegate to another ecclesiastical 
body, or a Secretary to one of its Boards. For my 
purpose, at present, he may be such, with this differ- 
ence, that the law fixes their term of office — his is for 
life, unless he is by judicial process deprived of it for 
adequate cause * 

So much, then, for the executive or ministerial func- 
tions of the General Conference, which Dr. H. claimed 
dubiously. They reside in that body only potentially. 
Itself cannot "execute" one of its laws. Even its 
simple Eules of Order, or its judicial decisions of dep- 
osition and expulsion, taking effect when sentence is 
pronounced, cannot be executed except by the interven- 
tion of some ministerial agent. All its power in posse 
becomes real potency only in its ministers. It is con- 

*Dr. H. contends that a Bishop's office is not for life, if the Conference 
choose to recall it; and he cites the power of the President to change the 
Cabinet officers. This power, however, was first given by law. See Kent's 
Com., vol. i., p. 309. And the recent ease between President Johnson and 
Secretary Stanton, and the " Tenure-of-office Bill" growing out of it, show 
the unsoundness of the argument. 



56 The Disruption of the M E. Church. 

veycd to them by law; it returns to its source, when 
it can return at all, only by law — that is, according to 
the terms, limitations, and conditions which the law 
establishes. The General Conference can "execute" 
nothing or nobody merely at will, for it has no execu- 
tive functions, much less any that are supreme. 

Dr. Hamline farther elaims for the General Confer- 
ence supreme judicial functions. Granted — supreme 
in that there is no appeal from its judgments; or, as 
he says, " it is independent of all systematic responsi- 
bility to a higher tribunal." But it is not so supreme 
that it can usurp the judicial powers which it has 
conveyed by law to lower tribunals. It cannot ar- 
raign or try a preacher or member; it has no original 
jurisdiction except over Bishops. By its own act, its 
judicial powers are limited, and it is bound by its self- 
imposed limitations. It can sit as an inquest on the 
acts of a Conference and the administration of a 
Bishop, or in certain appeal cases, but only when they 
come before it in due legal form. It can expel a 
Bishop for even " improper conduct," and, of course, 
for higher offenses ; and from none of its judgments is 
there an appeal. But it can do these things not as a 
legislature, but as a court; and it must maintain as 
clear a distinction between its functions in its two 
diverse relations as though two separate bodies, in- 
stead of one body, were acting — the one in making 
law, the other in administering it. As a legislature, 
the General Conference has power to make "rules," 
etc., "of every sort," except where barred by consti- 
tutional provisions; but, as a court, it must be gov- 
erned as absolutely by its previous enactments as a 
Quarterly Conference is. As a court, it can neither 
take from nor add to a rule it has heretofore legislated 
into its Discipline; much less can it, in an emergency, 
enact or revoke one; and much less still can it cover,' 
by one brief preamble and resolution, a recital of fact 
as an accusation against a Bishop, a statute defining 
the alleged fact to be criminal and fixing its penalty, 
a verdict of guilty, a sentence of deposition, and an 
appointment of the executory minister. To do all this 
— to legislate, accuse, arraign, find a verdict, sentence, 



The Disruption of the M. E. Ceiurch. 57 

and issue a mandamus, all in the same breath — is exer- 
cising supreme jurisdiction with a vengeance! 

Yet this was the wonderful scope of the Finley Ees- 
olution, as denned by Dr. H., and vindicated by him 
on the ground that the supreme legislative and judicial 
functions of the Conference could meet and cooperate 
in one act of the body; that it could make and admin- 
ister law in the same utterance. Pleading for its ju- 
dicial supremacy, he denies what was urged — viz.: "that 
we have no authority to depose a Bishop, except for 
crime, and by a formal trial." The "fourth section," 
he urges, is nothing to us in a question of this sort. 
The whole section is statutory, not part of the Church 
Constitution, and therefore it cannot be invoked as 
authoritative — mere rules, revokable, in ten minutes, 
by two Conference-votes.* Whatever this Conference, 
he urges, can constitutionally do, it can do without 
first resolving it has power to do it — without passing 
into the Discipline a rule declaring its authority: its 
judicial power is derived not from its own enactments, 
but from the Constitution. Nothing in the Eestrictive 
Articles prohibits the removal or suspension of a 
Bishop; and, of course, nothing in our own statutes can 
deprive us, he says, of powers conferred on us by the 
higher authority of the Constitution. Suppose that 
the "fourth section" said, This body "has not power to 
depose a Bishop," we should still have power to de- 
pose, because the Constitution confers it; and we can 
no more divest ourselves, by our enactments, of our 
constitutional powers than man can divest himself of 
free agency and immortality! 

This is the argument condensed. Was ever such a 
monstrous doctrine of judicial supremacy propounded? 
It reduces that of the Star Chamber to a mere baga- 
telle. Here is a double-headed monster which, when 
acting judicially , needs no law to direct its verdict or 
judgment — cannot, indeed, subject itself to law, or can, 
at will, repeal or make law for the occasion — can, in 
the self-same act, legislate, declare a verdict, and pro- 

*Dr. H. here unwittingly bows to the majesty of law, when it stands in the 
way of the court. The "two votes" are, the one to suspend the "rules" to 
allow a change to be made in the Discipline, without one day's delay; the 
other, to nrmke the change. 

3* 



58 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

nounce a sentence of deposition from which there is 
no appeal — and all constitutionally. Nothing can bind 
so omnipotent a body — not even itself — not its own 
rules, or regulations, or decisions — not precedent, or 
its most solemn compacts, or treaties, or resolutions, or 
statutes — nothing under heaven can deprive it of the 
power to act at will — a power conferred by the higher 
authority of the Constitution — if only its action does 
not trench upon the prohibited limits of the six Ee- 
strictive Articles. Strange doctrine! 

Is it not true, on the contrary, that, until repealed, 
every rule of order, resolution, statute, not per se un- 
constitutional, which the General Conference passes, 
binds it, whether acting legislatively or judicially? 
When acting as a court, it ceases temporarily to be a 
legislature, and resolves itself, whether formally or 
not, into a judicatory — just as a senatorial body, on an 
impeachment case, lays aside, for the time, its legisla- 
tive functions, and is controlled bylaw as to every step 
in its proceedings. Our Constitution — so brief one 
may cover it with his hand — does not even constitute 
the judiciary, defines no offenses or crimes, affixes no 
penalties: these things are done by the General Con- 
ference, as a legislature ; and if, when sitting as a court, 
it make, or add to, or alter any law, and apply it to the 
case in hand, it is not only legislation out of time and 
place, but it is retroactive legislation — doubly wrong, 
therefore, in the making of law at all, and in the making 
of retrospective law, which is "unconstitutional, inop- 
erative, and void." (Kent's Com., vol. i., p. 454.) 

Nor can Dr. H. allege this independence of law for 
the General Conference on the ground that its suprem- 
acy lies back of the legislative and judicial powers he 
claims for it, in its delegated conventional powers; for 
the constituent body of preachers which, in 1808, con- 
ferred these powers, conferred with them its work, with 
all the regulations and limitations on its statute-book — 
viz.: (1) The law of its "design to reform this con- 
tinent, and spread scriptural holiness over these lands." 
(2) All the laws on its statute-book, some of which the 
delegated body could repeal, and some not, but, until 
repealed, as much a law to the Conference legislating 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 59 

or judging as to the lowest Church-court in the system. 
It cannot, then, while sitting as a court act as a con- 
vention — supreme, save as to a few restrictions ; for if 
it cannot he court and legislature at the same instant, 
much less can it concentrate conventional, legislative, 
and judicial functions into one act. 

Thus the theory we combat falls to the ground. The 
General Conference has full powers (slightly restricted) 
to make rules, etc., but this grant' of power does not 
give it authority to try, decree, and punish, without 
previous legislation to direct its processes; or to do 
these things under the fiction that, being its own law- 
maker, it can make and apply law in one act, and that 
even with retrospective application. 

But with all this claim of supreme power, Dr. H. did 
not wiiolly rely upon it as warrant for deposing Bishop 
Andrew: he claimed that there was law which war- 
ranted the action of the Conference. This law is now 
to be examined. 



60 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE PERVERSION OF LAW BY THE GENERAL CONFER- 
ENCE OF 1844. 

AS has been said, Dr. Hamline did claim warrant 
of law, as well as constitutional right, to depose 
Bishop Andrew, by passing the Finley Resolution — 
warrant, as he supposed, authorizing him to construe 
it as a mandamus, which is, in law, a judicial command 
to enforce on a subordinate officer the doing of some 
duty therein specified — some duty, merely ministerial, 
where he has no discretion as to its performance. Ex- 
amine the Resolution. Does it fulfill this condition? 
Not at all. It commanded nothing. It more resembles 
an "injunction," or, more properly, an "interdict, an 
ecclesiastical censure, prohibiting the administration 
of divine ordinances," etc. This it would have been, 
but that it prohibited no more than it commanded. It 
was a muddled medley, which more nearly resembles 
"a bill of attainder" — which is a legislative act of law 
and judgment combined — than it does any other legal 
process. It should never have been exalted to the dig- 
nity of a judicial decree; and yet the elaborate argu- 
ment of Dr. H. to prove it, from the Constitution, a 
mandamus in disguise, and his invocation of law to 
make it 'a legitimate sentence of deposition, give con- 
clusive evidence that this was intended to be the ac- 
cepted construction of this nondescript Resolution. 

Let us briefly examine the legal point he made. The 
G-eneral Conference neither commanded nor prohibited, 
but merely expressed "its sense," that a Bishop, for 
reasons stated, "desist from the exercise of his office," 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 61 

until the cause for the action ceased to exist. Dr. H. 
holds this expression of "sense" to be equivalent to a 
deposition, a mandate to vacate his official functions. 
He argues from the power to "expel" to the less power 
to depose from office, "if we see it necessary." Expul- 
sion for crime, he says, is necessary; for imprudence, 
it may be, but for "improper conduct" discretionary 
power is implied in "if we see it necessary;" and if 
this discretion is allowed as to use or nonuse of the 
power to expel, the Conference may farther exercise 
its discretion and substitute a lower penalty. This is 
his argument. 

But is it true that, in Methodist economy, the power 
to depose a Bishop from office is included in the power 
to "expel?" What is the deposition of a Methodist 
Bishop? Dr. H. says the General Conference can re- 
sume at will all the powers it has conveyed to a Bishop 
by its own act, " except such as are essential to Episco- 
pacy and Superintendency. It cannot destroy the 
Episcopacy, and the power to ordain is essential to its 
being," though it might perhaps be revoked by repeal- 
ing two or three lines of law. This implies that power 
to ordain could not be recalled without previous specific 
legislation; consequently not in this case of proposed 
deposition. Therefore, if the power to ordain, and 
also "whatever is essential to the Superintendency," 
as excepted above, cannot be resumed by the Confer- 
ence, pray what does deposition from office take from 
our Bishops? What is the relation of a deposed Bishop 
to the Church? His ordaining and superintending 
functions, Dr. H. grants, cannot be recalled, though 
these are his sole official functions. What is he now? 
A preacher, an elder, a Bishop; and yet not a Bishop! 
His deposition from official, does not affect his minis- 
terial, functions, or expel him from the Church. But 
to what Society, to what Conference, does he belong? 
What is his annual round of work? Can another 
Bishop make of him a pastor, a "preacher in charge," 
or a Presiding Elder? Who can resolve these doubts? 
They all must arise, if deposition from office may 
legally be substituted for "expulsion," in this only law, 
which attaches a penalty to a Bishop's malfeasance, 



62 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

whether it be great or little. Let this fact be noted, 
for it is suggestive. 

Now, did our wise fathers leave to us such a legacy 
of absurdities as are involved in the status of a deposed 
Methodist Bishop? Yerily, no! They could not have 
so stultified themselves — they who were so little le- 
nient of episcopal dereliction that mere cessation from 
"traveling at large among the people," without per- 
mission of the Conference, would have stripped one as 
saintly as Fletcher of " every ministerial function what- 
ever in our Church." Is it not patent that this law 
demands that, when the Conference " sees it necessary " 
to mete out to a Bishop any punishment whatever for 
"improper conduct," it must be expulsion? that there 
is no gradation of penalty between a resolution of dis- 
approval, or censure for official misfeasance, and ex- 
pulsion from the Church? They made no provisions 
anywhere in their ranks for a fallen Bishop. " Severe ! " 
does one say? But less severe than the law just cited 
respecting cessation from itinerating. It is severe — 
and well might Bishop Asbury write: "We can with- 
out scruple assert that there are no Bishops in any 
Episcopal Church upon earth who are subject to so 
strict a trial as our Bishops; " and when he added that 
he was "conscious that the Conference would neither 
degrade nor censure them, unless they deserved it," he 
both indicated the penalties devised for them and as- 
serted a confidence in the justice of a Conference that 
later knowledge would probably have much modified. 

Is it not certain, then, that expulsion was intended to 
be the lowest form of degradation for "improper con- 
duct" to be visited upon a Bishop? An impropriety 
in a private member, or even in a preacher, might be 
corrected by persistent admonition, and, during the 
curing process, his aberrations, confined within small 
space, might work no great damage to the Church; 
but even he, if persistent, may show the "crime of 
obstinacy," and merit expulsion. But. a Bishop — and 
here I borrow some of Dr. H.'s eloquence: 

The preacher and the class-leader, whose influence is guarded 
against so strongly, can do little harm — a Bishop, infinite. Their 
improper acts are motes in the air; yours, sir, a pestilence abroad 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 63 

in the earth. Is it more important to guard against those than it 
is to guard against these? Heaven forbid! Like the concealed 
attractions of the heavens, we expect a Bishop's influence to he all- 
hinding everywhere, in the heights and the depths, in the center 
and on the verge of this great ecclesiastical system. If, instead 
of concentric and harmonizing movements — such as are wholesome, 
and conservative, and beautifying — we observe in him irregular- 
ities which, however harmless in others, will be disastrous or 
fatal in him, the energy of this body must instantly reduce him to 
order; or, if that may not be, plant him in another and in a dis- 
tant sphere. 

True ; but this must be done legally; and for such a 
case the laws set by the fathers — the only proper di- 
rectory of the Conference — ordain not deposition from 
office, but expulsion. 

Thus severely did our fathers intend to deal with 
"improper conduct" in a Bishop, if ever they saw it 
necessary (a strong word) to affix any open disgrace to 
his act. But was so severe a penalty to be inflicted for 
slight cause? Was the Church only to be guarded, and 
not the character of its highest functionary? These 
fathers could never have so intended — they who waited 
and labored long and faithfully for the amendment of 
a member or preacher charged with "improper con- 
duct," before they resorted to his expulsion for healing 
the Church. Is not the "improper conduct" in a Bishop, 
which is to be visited by expulsion, something of mo- 
ment, affecting his general, universal, not local, useful- 
ness, and impairing by inherent disqualification the 
proper exercise of ministerial as well as of episcopal 
powers — something that had already done this in a 
measure, and threatened worse results — something 
which, scrutinized closely, calmly, prayerfully, with 
tender care for a brother whose character hung on a 
word from which there was no appeal, shut them up 
to the imperative necessity of healing the Zion his " im- 
proprieties " had wounded, by degradation — expulsion ? 
Well may Dr. H. say, pleading for his lower penalty, 
deposition — and how much more, then, if expulsion is 
the penalty — 

We should inquire, as to the Church, how she is likely to be 
affected by the improper conduct of her officer. Will she be lo- 
cally and slightly embarrassed, or extensively and severely? If 
the injury threatened will be confined to a small district, and will 



64 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

probably be slight and ephemeral, we may bear it; but if it be 
likely to fall on large districts, and work great evils, producing 
strife, breaking up Societies, and nearly dissolving Conferences; 
and if calamities so heavy are likely to be long-continued, and 
scarcely ever end, the call for summary proceedings on the part of 
the Conference is loud and imperative. 

True; but not the whole truth. If this be a real, a 
proved impropriety, felt to be such throughout the 
Church, affecting it in all sections alike as disastrously 
as here anticipated, the Conference ought then to deal 
with the t case — yet not "summarily," but on regular 
charge and specification, and proper trial with proof; 
and when the conviction has been according to law, the 
sentence that the law directs — expulsion — should fol- 
low. But the Finley Eesolution had no such case of 
"improper conduct " in view. The impropriety alleged 
was not real, but factitious — an act, or rather a relation, 
consistent with — allowed by — the law of the Church, 
as explained in 1840, and one that proved no bar, in 
1828, to an election by the Conference itself of one to 
a high official dignity, even when his being a slave- 
holder was the specified ground of opposition to the 
nominee. The existence of this relation, innocently 
acquired by the accused Bishop, was, against law and 
precedent, construed into an impropriety by agitators 
— perhaps by some into a crime — and they took advan- 
tage of it to attempt to disintegrate the Church. Cir- 
cumstances in the political condition of'the country 
favored their movements; and the agitators did, no 
doubt, greatly disturb the peace of the New England 
Churches. 

But the "triers" in this case — accusers, judges, and 
jury — did not venture in their "indictment" — if the 
Finley Eesolution is entitled to the name — to desig- 
nate the act, which brought about the relation, as "im- 
proper conduct," or the relation itself as improper. 

This singular medley — 1. Eecites two facts: (1) 
Bishop Andrew is connected with slavery; (2) this 
"act draws after it circumstances." 2. Ventures an 
opinion: These circumstances will (hereafter), in our 
"estimation," embarrass, perhaps in some places pre- 
vent, the exercise of his episcopal office. 3. Implies 
adroitly that the essence of the impropriety (if that 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 65 

can be located anywhere in this unprecedented instru- 
ment) is that he has done what the General Conference 
is forbidden to do — viz.: made, by becoming a slave- 
holder, a '-regulation" that will destroy the itinerant 
General Superintendence. 4. Declares the "-manda- 
mus [/] measure," that it is "the sense" of the Gen- 
eral Conference that this itinerant General Superin- 
tendent — though still left on the roll of Bishops, in 
Minutes, Hymn-books, and Discipline — shall "desist" 
altogether from either itinerating or superintending; 
and, 5. Refers it to the Bishop to enforce the sentence 
— "he desist" — upon himself. "Where now is the case 
of "improper conduct," in the Church's original sense 
thereof either charged or established on legal princi- 
ples? Who was the culprit now — the Bishop or the 
General Conference, which, by deposing him from the 
Superintendency, and yet leaving him a Superintend- 
ent, did make a "regulation" that, as to him at least, 
"destroyed the itinerant General Superintendency?"* 
And Dr. H. ought to have added, farther: We should 
inquire as to the effect our action is to have on other 
large districts of the Church (than those he held in 
view). There were thirteen Annual Conferences, serv- 
ing near five hundred thousand Methodists, who held 
that both the Discipline and precedent authorized the 
relation, which is here found to be so irreducible to 
the category of improprieties, that all the wisdom of 
the Conference can find no fit form 'of words to frame 
an indictment upon it as such, and can set it forth in 
only a tangled mass of ideas contradictory to law, in- 
terpolative of law, and violative of precedent under 
law — perpetrating, too, the absurdity of making a 
Bishop's act violate a restriction upon General Confer- 
ence legislation. May we not, the Conference should 
have asked, merely change the theater of disaster — by 
our act transfer to another equally large and impor- 

* And that General Conference farther infracted the constitutional provision 
requiring that the integrity of the "itinerant General Superintendency" be 
preserved inviolate, by its raising to the Episcopacy Dr. Hamline, who, though 
an estimable Christian gentleman, had taken such a position now. and had 
done so much toward deposing Bishop Andrew, that these acts would have 
"so embarrassed him in the exercise of his office" in all the Southern Con- 
ferences that it would have been the general "sense" of wise men that he 
should " desist from its exercise" altogether. 



66 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

tant section of the Church all the mischief so elo- 
quently described above — ourselves initiate disaster, 
"which shall fall on large districts, and work great 
evils, producing strife, breaking up Societies, dissolv- 
ing Conferences?"* 

A case so complicated demanded solution by the 
strictest adherence to law. Nothing but law could vin- 
dicate its consideration, even in the inquest of the 
Committee on Episcopacy. Had they judged it a real, 
not an assumed, case of " improper conduct," the Bishop 
should have been put upon his trial regularly. If ac- 
quitted, there was the end of it, so far as he was con- 
cerned; if not, the law should have governed — he 
should have been expelled. No claim of supreme leg- 
islative, executive, or judicial functions in the General 
Conference warranted any other dealing with this 
case. 

If whatever may have been done the wide disaster 
predicted would have followed — and I believe it would 
— the time was fully come for Methodism to separate 
into "two bands;" and had this fact been recognized 
by the Conference, and a plan of separation devised 
which would have effected at first that to which the 
Conference was driven at last, peace would have re- 
mained, and harmony, between the two Methodisms — 
without bitter recollections of wrong-doing left as a 
heritage of evil to coming generations. 

The conclusion we reach is that Dr. Hamline does 
not show any warrant of law for defusing Bishop 
Andrew by regular trial; neither does he show any 
constitutional authority for deposing him, as was 

*It would not have been amiss for the Conference to ask what precedent — 
if precedents are any thing to a supreme General Conference — this case might 
set. What Bishop is secure against liability to awaken prejudice in even large 
classes of local agitators? Matters of opinion have more frequently been 
made the occasion of persecution than matters of fact. Indeed, it was opin- 
ions more than facts that was the animus of this whole prosecution; and 
where they are urged to the point of accusation and deposition from office — 
on the claim of conspirators, who assert that a Bishop holding such and such 
opinions cannot preside among them — we may depose, one and another Bishop 
without any taint of criminality in one of them. One is obnoxious here as a 
slave-holder; another elsewhere as an Abolitionist; another is a Freemason; 
one uses tobacco; another holds to " social equality;" another is this, that, or 
the other, which, in this or that Conference, will "embarrass" his adminis- 
tration. Where is this thing to stop? When men learn to respect themselves 
too much to be greedy for office at the extinction of the Episcopacy, is the 
most probable answer. 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 67 

done, without trial, merely at the will of the ma- 
jority. 

But the high assumptions that such dealing implies 
would not have been made but for a false theory re- 
specting the relations of the Bishops to the General 
Conference. 

This theory will be next examined. 



68 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE RELATION OF THE BISHOPS TO THE GENERAL 

CONFERENCE. 

THE argument respecting the power of the G-eneral 
Conference over the Bishops has proceeded with- 
out controverting the assumption, made in 1844, that a 
Bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church is but a 
mutable functionary in the Church — an officer — a 
"creature" — of the General Conference, whose conduct 
can be investigated at any G-eneral Conference; and 
that then he can be made, without any formal trial, to 
vacate his office at the will of that body, if it " see it 
necessary." The Southern Delegates insisted that the 
"Episcopacy is a coordinate branch of the govern- 
ment," and that, " in a sense by no means unimportant, 
the General Conference is as much a creature of the 
Episcopacy as the Bishops are the creatures of the 
General Conference." 

The General Conference acted upon its theory in 
Bishop Andrew's case — a theory exjDOunded by Dr. 
Hamline, that the General Conference has power di- 
rectly " from the grant of the Constitution, which is a 
catholic grant, embracing all, beyond a few (six) re- 
strictions, to try a Bishop for crime, and to depose him 
summarily for improper conduct," without first pass- 
ing a law for its guidance — or, as he says, " passing a 
rule declaring its authority." 

Dr. H. carried his theory farther even, when, in ex- 
plaining, he said: 

I argued that a Bishop may he displaced at the discretion of the 
Conference, when, in their opinion, it becomes "necessary" on ac- 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. C9 

count of "improper conduct;" and, I might have said, without im- 
proper conduct on his part, so far as constitutional restrictions are 
concerned. 

And, again, as to the assertion that the analogy "between Bish- 
ops and inferior officers will not hold, I answer: This Conference 
is responsible to the Constitution, and. if it wished to bind itself 
not to remove a Bishop, it could call on the Annual Conferences to 
aid it in assuming a constitutional restriction. Not having done 
so proves that it intends to hold this power, and execute it when 
necessary. 

Having in the last chapters proved that the General 
Conference could not properly claim such power over 
the Bishops as to do with them, even as mere officers, 
whatever the Eestrictive Articles do not inhibit, and 
passing, for the present, the strange doctrine that it 
held for prospective use every power that it had not 
asked the Annual Conferences to take away from it — even 
to that of deposing a Bishop " without improper con- 
duct on his part" — I come now to discuss the question, 
Are the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
as the office-theory of the General Conference sup- 
poses, mutable functionaries of the Conference — ■ 
changeable at will? I hope to show that our Episco- 
pacy is not that subject and servile thing which this 
theory would make it. 

Like every thing about Methodism, its Episcopacy is 
the outgrowth of circumstances, and we must study its 
historical development to know the extent and limita- 
tions of both its powers and its prerogatives. Con- 
flicting opinions respecting these questions first arose, 
so far as I can learn, in this General Conference of 
1844 — itself an argument in favor of my view. The 
authority of Bishoj) ISoule is certainty good on ques- 
tions of history and legislation, and he said, in 1844, 
speaking to this point: 

I wish to say, explicitly, that if the Superintendents are to he 
regarded only as officers of the General Conference of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, and, consequently, as officers of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, liahle to be deposed at will by a simple 
majority of this body, without a form of trial, no obligation exist- 
ing — growing out of the Constitution and laws of the Church — 
even to assign cause wherefore — I say, strange as it may seem, al- 
though I have had the honor and privilege to be a member of the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church ever since 



70 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

its present organization; though I was honored with a seat in the 
Convention of Ministers which organized it in this respect, I have 
heard for the first time, either on the floor of this Conference, in 
an Annual Conference, or through the whole of the private mem- 
bership of the Church, this doctrine advanced; this is the first time 
I ever heard it. Of course it struck me as a novelty. ... I 
thought that the Constitution of the Church — its laws and regula- 
tions — its many solemn vows of ordination — the parchments, which 
I hold under the signature of the departed dead — I thought that 
these had prescribed my duties — had marked out my course — had 
defined my landmarks as a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church — not the Bishop of the General Conference — not the Bishop 
of an Annual Conference. . . . This Conference is very soon 
to settle this question, whether it is the right of this body, and 
whether they have the power to depose a Bishop of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church — to depose my colleague — to depose me, without 
a form of trial, . . . without charge, and without once being 
called on to answer in the premises — for what Bishop Andrew did 
say was voluntary. ... I hold that the General Conference 
has an indisputable right — constitutional, sacred — to arraign at her 
tribunal every Bishop, to try us there; to find us guilty of any 
offense with which we are charged, on evidence, and to excommuni- 
cate — expel us. I am always ready to appear before this body in 
that regard. I recognize fully their right. . . . You must 
know that, with the principles I have stated to you, it will not be 
Bishop Andrew alone that your word will affect — that the resolu- 
tion on which we are just about to act goes to sustain the doctrine 
that the General Conference have power and right to depose one 
of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church without form 
of trial — that you are under no obligation from the Constitution 
and laws to show cause even — this is the principle involved in this 
vote. It involves the office; it involves the charge; it involves the 
relation itself. 

These opinions of Bishop Soule are not at all incon- 
sistent with the idea that ours is only a " moderate 
Episcopacy." While High-church Episcopacy sets the 
Bishop above the Church and its courts, the converse 
opinion is not necessarily true — viz.: that "moderate 
Episcopacy" sets the Church and its courts over the 
Bishops. Bishop Soule, whose very decided opinions 
on one side of the question have just been given, de- 
clares as decidedly in favor of a moderate Episcopacy 
in the Bishops' Address to this same General Confer- 
ence of 1844 — which is from his pen. He says: 

The office of a Bishop, or Superintendent, according to our eccle- 
siastical system, is almost exclusively executive. ... So far 
from being irresponsible in their office, the Bishops are amenable 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 71 

to the General Conference, not only for their moral conduct and 
for the doctrines they teach, but also for the faithful administration 
of the government of the Church according to the provisions of 
the Discipline, and for all decisions they make on ecclesiastical 
law. In all the cases this body has original jurisdiction, and may 
prosecute to final issue in expulsion, from which decision there is 
no appeal. . . . Confirming orders, by ordaining deacons and 
elders, is involved in the Superintendence^. We say confirming, 
because the orders are conferred by another body, which is inde- 
pendent of the episcopal office, both in its organization and action. 
This confirmation of orders, or ordination, is not by virtue of a 
distinct and higher order f* for, with our great founder, we are 
convinced that Bishops and presbyters are the same order in the 
Christian ministry; but it is by virtue of an office constituted by 
the body of presbyters for the better order of discipline, for the 
preservation of the unity of the Church, and for carrying on the 
work of God in the most effectual manner. The execution of this 

*The writer is not so scrupulous as many of the older Methodists were as 
to the use of this word " order," though he holds precisely the same opinion 
with them as to the functions and prerogatives of the Episcopacy. In our 
Church it is as much a separate order from the eldership and diaconate as in 
the prelatic Episcopal Churches. But our Bishops differ from these prelates 
in two essential particulars: (1) Though the Episcopacy is an order, it is not 
an order in the so-called line of apostolic succession, and therefore our Bishops 
do not claim to be an apostolic order — one remove above an episcopal order con- 
stituted by the presbytery. On the former theory the total extinction of the 
Episcopacy would follow'the death of the last " successor;" on the latter the 
Episcopacy may be brought into being or renewed whenever the presbyterial 
order finds it necessary to elevate one or more of themselves into the episco- 
pal order; and the ordained person remains in that order a Bishop, as they 
remain in their order elders, for life, unless divested of their powers for 
proper cause. (2) The prelatical Episcopacy holds the Church in its loins, as 
it were. Church-order in all Episcopal Churches requires ordination as pre- 
requisite to that administration of the ordinances which defines a Church. 
(See definition in our Articles of Religion.) In prelatical Churches the Bish- 
ops have entire control of such ordinations; and so they hold the power, as 
they may select their priests and deacons, to advance, retard, build up, or de- 
stroy the visible Church. Our episcopal order has no such power — can ordain 
none for sacramental service, except as the Church selects ; and so it has en- 
tire control of the men and means by which it propagates itself. Therefore, 
the episcopal order with us is a very different affair. from the prelatical order 
among High-churchmen and Romanists; and we have no reason to fear the 
word " order." In dropping it out of use we confuse, if not stultify, ourselves ; 
for what, then, does our " ordination of Bishops " mean? We have, in truth, 
the same right to use the word " ordination," and to speak of " orders," as 
have the Bishops of the Church of England, however some of them have 
changed the sense and significance of the words. There is no evidence that 
any who accepted the episcopal office under Queen Elizabeth, after the Ro- 
manist reaction under Queen Mary, had any belief in apostolical succession, or 
in the divine institution of the episcopal order. Many of Mary's Bishops re- 
fused to continue in office under Queen Elizabeth; and she, in reconstituting 
the Church of England, turned for her ordinations to the remnant of those 
Bishops who had refused to conform under Mary, and had been deposed. 
They were still Bishops, but not Bishops in office. And the four who acted as 
consecrators, at the Queen's instance, believed, as we do, in a " moderate 
Episcopacy," and "William Barlow, the oldest, said that ordination was not 
necessary to making a Bishop ; that Bishops were not necessary to the Consti- 
tution of the Church ; that wherever three persons met to worship God. if only 
'wobblers and weavers," that was the true Church. (Bunt's History of Reliqious 
Thought in England.) y 



72 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

office is subject to two important restrictions which would be irrel- 
evant to prelacy, or diocesan Episcopacy, constituted on the basis 
of a distinct and superior order. The latter involves independent 
action in conferring orders, by virtue of authority inherent in, and 
exclusively appertaining to, the Episcopacy; but the former is a del- 
egated authority to confirm orders, the exercise of which is de- 
pendent on another body. The Bishop can ordain neither a deacon 
nor an elder without the election of the candidate by an Annual 
Conference; and, in case of such election, he has no discretional 
authority, but is under obligation to ordain the person elected, 
whatever may be his own judgment of his qualifications. [Their 
prerogatives at the first were not so restricted, as will appear 
hereafter.] These are the two restrictions previously alluded to. 
This is certainly. a wise and safe provision, and should never be 
changed or modified so as to authorize the Bishops to ordain with- 
out the authority of the ministry. With these facts in view, it is 
presumed that it will be admitted by all well-informed and candid 
men that, so far as the constitution of the ministry is concerned, 
ours is a "moderate Episcopacy." 

Some things are to be noted in these extracts: 

1. Bishop Andrew's name is appended to the paper 
just quoted, and it was offered after he had learned 
that his "marrying into slave-holding" was considered 
a ground of accusation against him; and yet he avows 
his "amenability" to the General Conference, which 
term, under the circumstances, he could not have con- 
sented to use in the latitudinarian sense afterward 
attached to it by the majority of the General Con- 
ference. 

2. In Bishop Soule's exposition of the legitimate 
power of a General Conference over the Bishop, he 
makes no mention of deposition as a legal penalty, but 
of "excommunication" only; while it was claimed very 
explicitly by Dr. Hamline, as has been seen, that the 
latter included the former penalty, which, it was said, 
could be inflicted at will for any cause that might seem 
to a majority sufficient. Bishop Soule emphatically 
denies this claim, and he insists that the penalty pre- 
supposes a regular form of trial by the law, and on 
charges and proof. 

3. He shows that "moderate Episcopacy" consists 
not in the fact that "Superintendents are officers of the 
General Conference," to be set aside at will, but that 
it is found in that they have no original and independ- 
ent j)ower to perpetuate the Church by ordaining, at 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 73 

their own option, a ministry to give the sacraments to 
the people — the essence of a regular Church — and that 
this power is held by the Methodist Episcopal Church 
itself, and is exercised through the Bishops as its ex- 
ecutive officers. But even this restriction on the Bish- 
ops does not make them mutable functionaries in the 
Church — like editors, book agents, secretaries, etc. 

The historical development of our Episcopacy and 
its functions and prerogatives will prove that the Bish- 
ops are not "creatures" of the General Conference, 
and consequently mutable functionaries of that body,, 
removable at will for less than moral apostasy or offi- 
cial delinquency — removable without charge or trial. 

It can be established that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church — much less its G-eneral Conference — never cre- 
ated its Episcopacy. On the contrary, the Episcopacy 
organized, and gave ecclesiastical vitality to, a number 
of "Societies," and constituted them into the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church. Dr. Coke tells us that, in 1788, 
it was agreed, not by a G-eneral Conference, but by a 
Conference in Georgia — one of that yearly series of 
Conferences before which questions were brought 
seriatim — that Mr. Wesley's name should be inserted 
at the head of our Small [Annual] Minutes as the 
fountain of our episcopal office. (Stevens's History, vol. ii., p. 
278.) The Bishops ordained through Mr. W. were, in 
turn, the "fountain" of the existence of our Church 
as an organized body, clothed with all Church-func- 
tions — a fully endowed Church of Christ. Methodism 
did not exist in such organic Church-form prior to 
1784, and its Bishops existed before it, and reduced it to 
that form. Its adherents previously were collected in 
"Societies," which, in the aggregate, were called the 
Methodist Societies — the members collectively, "The 
Methodists," and they considered themselves members 
of the Church of England. They were served with 
the gospel by Mr. Wesley's "assistants" and their 
"helpers," who could only instruct and exhort— they 
having no authority to administer the ordinances. Mr. 
Wesley was, in effect, their Bishop, represented in this 
country by unordained "assistants" appointed by him- 
self. He appointed Mr. Asbury in 1772 ; afterward Mr. 
4 



74 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

Rankin, who returned to England during the Revolu- 
tionary War, leaving no appointed head over the So- 
cieties. In 1779 the preachers, in Conference, declared 
that Mr. Asbury "ought to act as General Assistant," 
because originally appointed by Mr. Wesley; and they 
asserted for him a very large power — namely, that 
" on hearing every preacher for and against what is in 
debate, the right of determination shall rest with him, 
according to the Minutes." * 

Here was the foreshadowing of the original episco- 
pal power and prerogative — a copy of Mr. Wesley's. 
In 1783 Mr. Wesley especially confirmed the appoint- 
ment of Mr. Asbury as "General Assistant," directing 
him to receive no preachers in America "who would 
not submit to him and to the Minutes of the Confer- 
ence." (Asbury' 's Journal, vol. i., p. 363.) 

In 1784 Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke — already a 
presbyter of the Church of England — to be a Bishop, 
and Messrs. Whatcoat and Yasey, two of his preachers, 
to be elders, or presbyters; and he sent them over to 
the United States to convey to the American preachers 
the right "to baptize and to administer the Lord's 
Supper," appointing Coke and Asbury "to be joint 
Superintendents over our brethren in North Amer- 
ica." 

The preachers were called together in extraordinary 
session in Baltimore, 24th December, 1784, and sixty 
out of eighty-one of them came, and constituted the 
first "General Conference" — the record of their con- 
vocations up to that time being modestly styled, "Min- 
utes of some Conversations between the Preachers in 
connection with Rev. Mr. John Wesley." "At this 
Conference," 1784, say the Minutes of 1785, "we 

*This power, as well as the requirement of the " consent and imposition of 
hands of a Superintendent" in all ordinations, was, so far as any thing to the 
contrary now appears, voluntarily surrendered. These regulations disappear 
from the Discipline of 1787-9, where several things .come and go, rather in- 
formally and irregularly. Mr. Asbury was engaged occasionally from Novem- 
ber, 1785, to April, 1787, in revising and recasting the Discipline. Doubtless he 
submitted the changes he made to the several Annual (called District) Confer- 
ences—perhaps only informed them of his proposed vacation of prerogative, 
after the fashion of that day. Certain it is that these powers were never taken 
from the Bishops by a General Conference, for none was held from 1784 to 
1792, and these changes appear in 1787-9. (See Ashury's Journal, vol. i., p. 391 ; 
vol. ii., p. 29; Emory'' s History of the Discipline, p. 81; Stevens's History of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii., p. 181.) 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 75 

formed ourselves into an independent Church; and, 
following the advice of Mr. John Wesley, who recom- 
mended the episcopal mode of Church -government, 
we thought it best to become an Episcopal Church, 
making the episcopal office elective, and the elected 
Superintendents, or Bishops, amenable to the body of 
ministers and preachers." 

Mr. Asbury writes (Journal, vol. ii., p. 378): " When 
the Conference [1784] was seated, Dr. Coke [already a 
Bishop] and myself were unanimously elected to the 
Superintendency of the Church, and my ordination 
followed/' The Discipline of 1789 expressly says that 
Mr. Wesley, having ordained Dr. Coke to the episcopal 
office and delivered to him "letters of episcopal or- 
ders," " commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis 
Asbury, then G-eneral Assistant of the Methodist So- 
ciety in America, for the same episcopal office." 
"At which time the General Conference, held at Balti- 
more, did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke 
and Francis Asbury as their Bishops." The Notes on 
the Discipline, written by Bishops Coke and Asbury, 
say : " The late Eev. John Wesley recommended the 
episcopal form to his Societies in America; and the 
G-eneral Conference, which is the chief synod of our 
Church, unanimously accepted it. Mr. Wesley did 
more. He first consecrated one for the office of a Bishop, 
that our Episcopacy might descend from himself. The 
General Conference unanimously accepted of the per- 
son so consecrated, as well as of Francis Asbury, who 
had for many years before exercised every branch of the 
episcopal office, excepting that of ordination." (Notes, 
p. 282.) Jesse Lee says : "Asbury declined ordination 
to the Superintendency, unless, in addition to the ap- 
pointment of Mr. Wesley, his brethren should formally 
elect him Bishop." (Stevens's History, on G. C, vol. 
ii., p. 183.) 

We have put a few words above in italics, because they 
give a clew to this entire transaction. Mr. Wesley in- 
tended that his " General Assistant," Mr. Asbury, should 
be to his American " Societies," erected into a Church, 
all that he teas to the "United Societies" in Great 
Britain. He, therefore, arranged to confer on Mi\ A. 



76 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

episcopal orders.* His office of Superintendent — under 
another name — with all the episcopal powers, except 
that of ordaining, he had long held — (1) by virtue of 
Mr. Wesley's appointment, and (2) because called to 
it, in 1779, by the preachers. The powers attached to 
the office were transferred to, and made inherent in, 
the Episcopacy; but Mr. A. judiciously declined to exer- 
cise, or even assume, these powers in this new relation, 
unless, in addition to the appointment of Mr. Wesley, 
the preachers consented to receive him as Superintend- 
ent. Without their consent, he might have proceeded 
to exercise, by prerogative, all the power to which Mr. 
Wesley appointed him. He had this right, (1) by the 
relation the Societies held to Mr. W., and by that which 
he (Asbury) held to the "Societies" by Mr. W.'s ap- 
pointment; and (2) by the power he received, in 1779, 
to determine all questions in debate, after a hearing, 
"according to the Minutes." But to exercise this right 
as a Bishop, though under the more modest name of 
Superintendent, without a specified assent, he thought 
unwise. Had he done it, many members might have 
revolted. Doubtless a large body would have adhered 
to him, and these would then have constituted the 
Methodist Episcopal Church; and the others might, by 
some means, have secured presbyterial ordination from 
abroad and constituted themselves into another Meth- 
odist Church; or the Conference might have rejected 
Mr. Wesley's plan and appointment, and Mr. A. might 
have acquiesced and declined to act as Bishop, and 
helped that body to secure the sacraments, and to con- 
stitute the Societies into a Church, in some other way. 
Many alternatives to the method pursued present 
themselves, and they are sometimes brought into the 
argument to show what might have been; and what, in 
that event, would -be the power of the Bishops — had 
there been any — or of equivalent officers of presbyte- 
rial ordination under some other official title; and 
what would be the relations of such officers to this 
possible Church. But we submit that all such hy- 
potheses are not pertinent. The only questions perti- 

*The office was of Mr. Wesley's own creation, and he intended it to be per- 
petual. {Emory's Defense, etc., p. 78.) For " orders," see Defense, pp. 02-64. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 77 

nent in the discussion of the relations of our Bishops 
to our General Conference, and, indeed, to the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, are, How were these — Bishops, 
Conference, Church — respectively constituted? in what 
order? with what original, or conferred, or restricted 
powers, respectively? and not, How, on the hypothesis 
of presbyterial parity, might all these things have been? 
Bearing this in mind, let us examine the question of 
episcopal powers. 

We have seen what Mr. Asbury's powers were as 
"General Assistant," and they remained his as Bishop, 
except so far as he voluntarily relinquished them. 
After he became Bishop, "his powers were extraordi- 
nary, almost plenary; but he was subjected to an ex- 
traordinary amenability. Besides presiding in the 
Conferences, he made absolutely the appointments, or 
annual distribution of the preachers, having yet no 
cabinet of Presiding Elders. In the intervals of the 
Conference, he could receive, change, or suspend 
preachers. He decided finally appeals from both 
preachers and people. Ordinations depended upon 
the vote of a majority of the Conference, yet the 
Bishop had a veto power over such vote. He could 
unite two or more Annual Conferences, and appointed 
the times and places of their sessions. But he could 
be deposed and expelled from the Church not only for 
crime, but for improper conduct — a liability to which 
no other preacher, nor the lowliest private member, 
was exposed." (Stevens's History of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, vol. ii., p. 224.) 

As to this "liability" — "amenability" is the word 
most used — of the Bishops, let us see its extent. Bishop 
Asbury, in his controversies with ambitious and recal- 
citrant preachers in his day, made much of it, and the 
apologists for Episcopacy paraded it largely in the days 
of "radical " agitation, and in such a way as may mis- 
lead the unwary reader into supposing that it means 
more than the "book" makes it. When the Bishops, 
in their Notes, speak of being "entirely dependent," 
"perfectly dependent," "perfectly subject," to the Gen- 
eral Conference, let it be remembered that they were 
specially contrasting their episcopal powers with the 



78 The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 

power wielded by Mr. Wesley and that of the English 
Bishops, with whom, as to claims, their enemies sought 
to confound them. When they speak more specifically 
of the items in which they were "dependent," they 
refer to a control over "preaching-houses" by the Gen- 
eral Conference — whereas, in Great Britain, these were 
under Mr. W.'s control; their liability to have the ap- 
pointing power taken from them if they should abuse 
it; the contrast of their responsibility to Mr. Wesley's 
irresj)onsibility; their subjection to "strict trial," and 
expulsion for even "supposed immorality;" the con- 
trol of the "funds" in the Conference, and not in 
themselves, as in his case; and such like differences 
between "our venerable father" and the American 
Bishops. They also contrast their power to ordain, 
only after election by a Conference, with that of other 
Bishops, in whom it resides at their own will ; and they 
point out the difference between a diocesan Episcopacy, 
with its "large salaries, splendid dresses, and other ap- 
pendages of pomp and splendor," and their "Gen- 
eral Itinerant Superintendency," with its obligation 
"to travel" till "superannuated," or, if ceasing to do 
so, " their absolute deprivation of every ministerial 
function whatsoever in the Church." But there is not 
a word to indicate that they believed their "office" so 
subject to the General Conference that they might be 
constrained to vacate it annually, quadrennially, or 
after any longer or shorter term, at the option of that 
body.* There was no provision made for a term of 
office — none for confirming them in office at set times 
in the future, which is itself a strong proof that it was 
conferred for life. There was even no provision for 

*It is a significant fact that, in the forms of ordination, there always was, 
and is now, in both Churches, a pledge of obedience to superiors made by 
deacons and elders, while none was exacted from Bishops. If the theory of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church were that on which our fathers proceeded, 
after reading the question to deacons, " Will you reverently obey them to 
whom the charge and government over you is committed?" and to elders, 
" Will you reverently obey your chief ministers, unto whom is committed the 
charge and government over you?" we should expect to find in the questions 
to the Bishops one to this effect: " Will you reverently obey the General Con- 
ference, whose creatures you are, and to all whose decisions you are to be en- 
tirely subject?" But we find not that the Bishops were ever put under such 
supreme obligations. Fidelity in "ordaining, or laying hands upon, and 
sending others, and in all other duties of your (their) office," is their only 
official pledge. What else they pledge has reference to their duties as Chris- 
tian ministers; there is no vow of subjection to the General Conference. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 79 

that "inquest" into their acts now exercised by the 
General Conference through the "Committee on Epis- 
copacy," which was first appointed in 1816, at the 
instance of Bishop McKendree, because of some com- 
plaints against his administration; and then com- 
menced the usage of reporting quadrennially on the 
episcopal administration. And it is patent that Bishop 
Soule meant no more than Bishop Asbury meant when 
he wrote about a Bishop's amenability — as quoted 
heretofore from the Episcopal Address of 1844, and 
largely relied upon as an answer to the Protest of the 
Minority; for his speech at the same Conference, when 
the majority were seeking to apply this doctrine of 
"amenability" to Bishop Andrew, flatly contradicts 
their interpretation of this doctrine. Thus he is no 
authority for the majority. 

The same apologetic spirit that we have noticed im- 
pelled the Eev. John Dickens (see Emory's Defense, etc., 
p. 109), in his "Remarks" on the proceedings of the 
seceding Hammett, of Charleston, S. C, to say that 
"Mr. Asbury was chosen by the Conference both be- 
fore and after (?) he was ordained Bishop. And he is 
still considered as the person of their choice by being 
responsible to the Conference (!), who have power to 
remove him, and fill his place with another, if they 
see it necessary. And as he is liable every year to 
be removed, he may be considered as their annual 
choice" (!). 

To say nothing about the singular logic of the last 
two sentences, it may be remarked that the facts stated 
are not confirmed by testimony, but are contradicted 
by other facts, and the inferences can pass only as Mr. 
Dickens's (erroneous) opinion. Indeed the main fact, 
Mr. Asbury 's liability annually to removal, was clearly 
impossible by the very usage which controlled the as- 
semblages and acts of the Conferences; and this con- 
firms the opinion that Mr. Asbury never suspected 
that he was receiving the office for one year, or for 
four, or any other term of years short of the time 
when he became physically incapable for the work.* 

*A little incident that appears in the Journal of 1800 farther confirms this 
view. A request being made that Mr. Asbury should let the Conference know 



80 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

To confirm this opinion, I refer again to Stevens, vol. 
ii., pp. 219, 220: 

The Christmas Conference was the first General Conference — 
that is to say, all the Annual Conferences were supposed to be 
there assembled. It was, therefore, the supreme judicatory of the 
Church. It was not yet a delegated body, but the whole ministry 
in session. It made no provision for any future session of the 
kind; but for some years legislative enactments were made as here- 
tofore — every new measure being submitted to each Annual Con- 
ference by the Superintendents, and the majority of all being 
necessary to its validity. Another General Conference was held, 
however, in 1792, no official minutes of which are extant. 

The third session was held in 1796, a compendium of the minutes 
of which was published. Thereafter a session has been held regu- 
larly every four years, and the minutes of each preserved. In the 
session of 1808 a motion was adopted for the better organization 
of the Conference as a "delegated" body. In 1812 it met in New 
York City as a "Delegated General Conference." 

Until the appointment of stated, or regular, General Conferences, 
the Annual Conferences continued to be considered local, or sec- 
tional, meetings of the one undivided ministry, held in different 
localities for the local convenience of its members, every general, 
or legislative, measure being submitted, as we have seen, to all the 
sessions before it could become law. Down to 1784 there had 
been but two sessions a year announced, though more were some- 
times irregularly held. The enlargement of the denomination 
now required more annual sessions: three were appointed for 1785 
— one in Maryland, one in Virginia, and one in North Carolina. 
These sufficed till 1788, when five were held. The next year they 
increased to eleven, and. in 1790 to fourteen, two being held beyond 
the Alleghanies. 

The Annual Conference was, therefore, still the supreme assem- 
bly of the Church, except when, by its appointment, a General 
Conference — that is to say, a collective assembly of the Annual 
Conferences — should intervene. 

In view of these facts, where was the possibility, be- 
fore 1792 (when Mr. Dickens wrote), of "the Confer- 
ence" removing Mr. Asbury and filling his place? and 

what he had determined to do, he intimated that he did not know whether the 
General Conference was satisfied with his former services. It did not seem to 
have occurred to him that all they had to do, if dissatisfied, was to pass a 
" Finley," or such like, "Resolution." A member proposed that "a vote 
should be taken." The vote was objected to until a reason should be assigned 
for the suspicion. Mr. Asbury then said that his affliction, since the last Gen- 
eral Conference, had been great; that his debility had obliged him to locate, 
etc., and that he did not know whether the General Conference, as a body, was 
"satisfied with such parts of his conduct." His mind was set at rest by a 
resolution that the General Conference considered itself under great obliga- 
tions to him for the many services he had rendered to the Connection. Mark! 
the question was what Mr. Asbury would do— not what the Conference should 
do with him. 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 81 

how could lie be "liable to such removal every year?" 
I need say nothing of the implications that may be 
concealed under the words "if they see it necessary." 
Do these words imply removal at will and without 
cause, as that of an officer subject to annual appoint- 
ment? or do they imply that the necessity shall be de- 
termined by law, evidence and legal conviction of 
improper conduct, maladministration, immorality, or 
crime? I am the more particular in showing that Mr. 
Dickens could not but have been mistaken in his broad 
assertions, and that he gives no testimony favoring 
deposition without trial, because he is the principal 
witness relied on by the majority of 1844 to invalidate 
the opinions of the Southern Delegates. (See Reply, 
etc.) 

Now, of what I have written this is the sum: 

1. Mr. Asbury did not derive his episcopal powers — 
whereby he could set apart men to administer the or- 
dinances — from the Conference of 1784, but from Mr. 
Wesley, by ordination. 

2. The preachers of the "Methodist Societies" had 
no part in this ordination — it being conducted by the 
English Delegates from Mr. Wesley — assisted by Mr. 
Otterbein, a minister of the German Lutheran Church. 
They but consented to receive Mr. Asbury (with Dr. 
Coke), after he should be ordained, as their "Superin- 
tendent," as they had received him before as Mr. Wes- 
ley's "Assistant." Thus receiving him, they could be 
empowered to carry to the people the sacraments for 
which there was a general clamor; otherwise they must 
seek authority elsewhere — it being a generally accepted 
postulate among the Methodists that ordination is es- 
sential to the orderly administration of the sacra- 
ments. 

3. The Methodist Episcopal Church did not come into 
existence merely by Mr. Wesley's ordaining Dr. Coke 
— nor by his appointing him and Asbury Eishops — nor 
by the Conference consenting to receive them as such 
— nor by Asbury's ordination as deacon, elder, and 
Bishop, on three consecutive days — nor by the ordina- 
tion of a number of deacons; but its real existence 
dates from Sunday. January 2, 1785, when twelve men 

4* 



82 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

(previously ordained deacons) were ordained as elders 
for the Methodist Episcopal Church. Now, for the first 
time, there was among American Methodists, and be- 
longing to the "Societies," "a congregation of faithful 
men " — the essential element in the "visible Church of 
Christ," according to our "Articles of Religion" — "in 
which the pure word of God" was "preached, and the 
sacraments" were "duly administered according to Christ's 
ordinance.'''' 

Then and thus was the Methodist Episcopal Church 
born out of the Societies, and brought into being as a 
Church, by Bishops, who found Methodism a Society 
and, by the prerogatives they brought with them, con- 
verted it into a Church, and continued to rule over it 
with defined powers, fixed by mutual consent. Our 
Episcopacy had its "fountain of authority" in Mr. 
Wesley; our Church — as defined in the Article just 
quoted — its fountain of authority in our Bishops, 
and the General Conference of 1844 its fountain of 
authority in the Conferences representing the Church, 
by election — and in the Bishops, by that investiture 
of the constituent members with the eldership which, 
by law, is necessary to constitute any preacher eligible 
as a Delegate to the General Conference. ' 

Thus I establish a coordination of functions in cre- 
ating the Church, and out of the Church the General 
Conference, between the Bishops on the one hand, 
and the body of the ministry on the other hand; and 
I show that the Church— and of course the Conference, 
its representative — is more a "creature" of the Bish- 
ops than they are "creatures" of the Conference. 
How, then, can our Episcopacy be a merely mutable 
office, conferred and recalled at the will of that body 
of elders? 

A little light is cast upon this subject by the attitude 
of the Bishops in and toward the General Conferences, 
while affairs Were settling down by usage into their 
present form. 

It has been learned from this history how the Bish- 
ops fixed up the Discipline from time to time — adding 
to or leaving out, after consulting with the Confer- 
ences — and sometimes, perhaps, without doing it. The 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 83 

Journals of the General Conference show that they 
very frequently made motions and opposed resolutions 
— perhaps voted when there was a "tie," if not at 
other times, as it was not till 1840 that we find the 
propriety of a "casting vote" doubted. Bishop Soule, 
the same year, offered a resolution — the last time, we 
believe, that a Bishop did this. 

In 1804 a resolution was passed to leave it to the 
Bishops to form a section on slavery to suit the North- 
ern and Southern States. Bishop Asbury refused to 
act under this order of the Conference, and the mat- 
ter was dropped. 

In 1808 Bishop Asbury moved, "from the chair," that 
one thousand copies of the Discipline be prepared for 
the use of the South Carolina Conference, in which the 
rule and section on slavery should be left out; and his 
motion prevailed. 

In 1820 the Conference made the Presiding Elders 
elective, and they were made "the advising council of 
the Bishop in stationing the preachers." But Bishop 
McKendree believed this measure unconstitutional, 
and, though he had no veto power, he had influence 
enough to have the law suspended, and he wrote and 
spoke against it, until it was finally rescinded. 

The difficulties offered by this question doubtless 
gave rise to the attempts — in 1820 and in 1824 — to 
give the Bishops a veto power. Resolutions conferring 
it passed in both these G-eneral Conferences, but the 
Journals do not tell us whether they went round to the 
Conferences, or what became of them. The fact is of 
consequence only as showing that these G-eneral Con- 
ferences believed the Bishops to occupy a relation that 
made them eligible to coordinate legislative powers, 
and. that they were so little "subject" to that body 
that it could not add to their powers — much less take 
them away without the assent of the Annual Confer- 
ences. 

In 1832 it was provided, at the request of the Can- 
ada Methodist Episcopal Church, that should it elect a 
Bishop, and wish one of our Bishops to ordain him, 
the Bishop "shall be at liberty to do so," provided it 
accord with his own judgment — and that until a Bishop 



84 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

was elected in Canada, if requested by its Conference, 
a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church "shall be 
at liberty to ordain any deacons or elders," etc., for the 
Canada Church. In 1828, when the division as to Can- 
ada was authorized, the same liberty respecting ordain- 
ing a Bishop was granted; but none had yet been 
elected. JSTow, would such an ordination have been 
an official act in and for the Methodist Episcopal 
Church? 

But farther: Bishop Hedding, who in 1829 had presided 
at the organization of the Canada Conference into an 
independent Church, was at the Conference in 1830, 
"not as its president, but as its visitor and friend;" 
and he ordained the preachers elected to orders by 
that Conference, giving them certificates of such ordi- 
nation. The authority to do this was not as yet 
granted. Now, was Bishop H. acting here as an officer 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church? He was not 
authorized or sent on this mission by that Church, nor 
was he ordaining members of it, or ministers for it's 
altars. "Was he acting as an officer of the Canada 
Church? He did not belong to that Communion. He 
was acting in the premises as an Episcopal Methodist 
Bishop, whose acts were valid, without any other au- 
thority than his ordination gave, it conferring a func- 
tional power that gave them validity wherever they 
were needed and legitimately solicited — just as Coke * 
was a Methodist Bishop in America even before the 
organization of a Methodist Episcopal Church on this 
continent. As a Bishop, his powers were inherited from 
and after his ordination; as a "Superintendent" in said 
Church, they became his because the preachers repre- 
senting the Societies received him as such. Bishop H. 
was received by the Canada Conference as a Bishop — 
but not as a Superintendent, or officer of the Confer- 
ence; and there is thus shown an essential difference 
between a Bishop and a mere executive officer of the 

*When Bishop Coke reached New York, Mr. Dickens, the preacher there, 
wished him to announce at once to the Societies the power he brought from 
Mr. Wesley. The former declined, till he could consult Mr. Asbury. After 
they met, a council of the preachers near at hand was called, and it was a 
question whether there should be a Conference called before Mr. Wesley's 
plan should be inaugurated. Bishop C. then voluntarily held his powers for 
a time in abeyance, as the result of that council. — Drew's Life of Coke. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 85 

General Conference, subject to its lordly and capricious 
will.* 

The facts above offered prove that the Bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church did not consider them- 
selves, and were not considered by the Church, mere 
lay figures to adorn the platform of a General Confer- 
ence, to maintain order, put motions, and decide law 
questions subject to correction by that body, and, un- 
less decapitated, in conformity to its "sense" about 
some disability incurred by them, to go forth animated 
statues — vitalized by the breath of gracious approval — ■ 
to execute its behests for another four years, and come 
back again to this august body, hopeful that no per- 
fectly legitimate act, performed all unwittingly of its 
terrible consequences, f had so "embarrassed the exer- 
cise of their office as itinerant General Superintend- 
ents" as to make it "the sense of the Conference that 
they desist from its exercise." 

Such a theory of our Episcopacy the fathers never 
held. It was born amid the chaos of 1844 — the off- 
spring of power in wedlock with Abolitionism. 

*A recent illustration of this subject is found in the episcopal functions ex- 
ercised by Bishop Cummins outside that Church from which he derived 
them, and of which he is no longer an officer. 

t Bishop Hedding once, traveling with his wife, drove up to the house of the 
" principal man in the Society," to whom he stated that he would like to stay 
and preach, if they could be entertained. "Well," said the principal man, 
" I want first to know if you are a Mason." " That," returned the Bishop, 
"is a question I don't want to meddle with; there is a great deal of excite- 
ment about it, and it is no matter whether I am or not." " Then," said the 
man, " I know you are one ; if you are not, you would say it. We do not want 
to entertain you, or to hear you, unless we know you are not a Mason." The 
Bishop drove on. {Life and Times, p. 374.) An Annual Conference or two in a 
section where like prejudices prevailed would have " entirely prevented the 
exercise of the itinerant General Superintendency " by a Bishop belonging 
to "the craft," and have made it the "sense of the Conference " that he 
vacate his office "until the impediment was removed," which in this case 
could be- only by death, if then— for is it not true that "once a Mason, al- 
ways a Mason?" 



86 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 



CHAPTER VI. 

A DIVISION OF THE CHURCH DECLARED INEVITABLE 
BEFORE THE FINLEY RESOLUTION WAS PASSED, AND 
THE RESULT WAS INTENDED. 

THE questions heretofore discussed are now to be 
dismissed. They have been thus fully treated not 
because they are points now in issue between the two 
Episcopal Methodisms, but to vindicate the Southern 
Delegates for their resolute, even desperate, resistance 
to the action of the General Conference on the Finley 
Eesolution. As living questions, they hold no place in 
the current controversy between the two Churches. 
Slavery is dead ; and, I dare say, it is willingly believed 
to be forever dead by the large majority of even South- 
ern Methodists. The opinions of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church respecting the status of its Bishops, and 
their relations to the General Conference, can be of no 
importance to the Church, South, unless proposals for 
organic union should be under consideration, which 
seems impossible until the points now in controversy 
are settled satisfactorily to Southern Methodism. These 
two questions are therefore dismissed, as wholly irrel- 
evant in the discussion of the present relations of the 
two Methodisms. 

Moreover, even the action, in 1844, in the case of 
Bishop Andrew retires into the background with these 
questions. It is no longer of practical importance 
whether the treatment of his case was, or was not, 
justifiable. His personal and official acts have been 
carried to a higher tribunal. For all the purposes of 
this discussion, it may even be granted that the South- 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 87 

ern Delegates were wrong in sustaining him — wrong 
in maintaining the principles they avowed; and yet 
this fact would not alter the relations inaugurated, if 
not finally established, by the action of the General Con- 
ference of 1844 after Eishop Andrew's case had been 
acted on in that body. That case, then, no longer be- 
longs to my theme; and if it be hereafter mentioned, 
it will not be either to justify or censure the one or the 
other party in the controversy of 1844. 

My present purpose is to show that this case became 
the occasion partly of engendering, partly of exposing 
to view, a state of feeling between the sections — an 
excited and divided public sentiment — that threatened 
wide-spread disaster, whatever may have been the 
action of the General Conference on the Finley Reso- 
lution. 

In prosecuting this purpose, I shall show, by sundry 
arguments, that the General Conference of 1844 was 
driven, by the settled purposes and principles of a large 
section of the Church, to elect between fearful disrup- 
tions and disorganization at the North on the one 
hand, if it took no action on the pending issues involv- 
ing the slavery question, and division, on the other 
hand, between the slave-holding and non-slave-hold- 
ing Conferences,* if it took such action as would sat- 
isfy Northern clamor; and that the majority, being 
from the non-slave-holding Conferences, chose the lat- 
ter alternative to save its section from disaster, and 
thus, by its action, transferred the threatened damage to 
the South. In other words, the majority intended the 
resulting sequence — the breaking up of the one ecumen- 
ical jurisdiction into two jurisdictions — as an alterna- 
tive to another sequence more disastrous to themselves. 
They intended to save Northern Methodism from the 
dissolution that impended, no matter what might be 
the result to Southern Methodism. 

I. My first argument is derived from the attitude of 
the New England Delegates already detailed. Before 
the Conference met, their ultimatum was stated, and 
the conservatives were engaged to take "the laboring 
oar." When there was probability that action might 

"The terms, though convenient and intelligible, are not perfectly accurate. 



88 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

be deferred four years, although this might save the 
South by the happening of many contingencies, they 
unanimously resolved that if it were postponed they 
could only save themselves by seceding in a body — 
which they would do, and invite Bishop Hedding to 
preside over them. He had signed the recommenda- 
tion to postpone action, believing that this measure 
would quiet the excitement; but when informed of the 
probable effect in New England, he withdrew his name, 
and prevented the immediate secession of that section, 
at the risk of whatever future damage might accrue 
at the South. 

II. My next argument is derived from the speeches 
of those who advocated the passage of the Finley 
Resolution. 

When Dr. Capers proposed (May 14) a Committee on 
Pacification, before Bishop Andrew's case had been 
mentioned in open Conference, Dr. Olin, in seconding 
it, speaking "tenderly" and under "powerful emotion," 
said: 

This resolution was offered in a spirit of conciliation. He had 
feared that it was not prohable they could escape from the disasters 
that threatened — that the difficulties now upon them would prove 
unmanageable. He did not see how Northern men could yield 
their ground, nor Southern men theirs. The Northern men are 
disposed, "if they believed they could without destruction and 
ruin to the Church, to make concessions." He looked "to this 
measure with desire rather than with hope." "With regard to 
our Southern brethren, if they concede to what the Northern 
brethren wish, they may as well go to the Rocky Mountains as to 
their own sunny plains. The people would not bear it." He be- 
lieved there was "not a man of them that would not even die if 
thereby he could heal this division." "If we must part, let us 
meet and pour out our tears together, and let us not give up until 
we have tried." 

This utterance was from one who knew both sec- 
tions well, who loved the South, and yet voted with 
the North. 

Dr. Durbin believed that the brethren of all parties would sac- 
rifice every thing but their ulterior principles for the continued unity 
of the Church — the gallant vessel, exposed to a dangerous rock in 
the South, and an equally dangerous one in the North. 

Mr. Crandall (New England Conference) said that they were 
standing on a volcano, which might at any moment destroy them. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 89 

After this effort at pacification had failed, and the 
Finley Eesolution was under discussion, 

Mr. Sandford (New York Conference) said that he thought the 
passage of this resolution expedient. If something were not done 
to remove the evils connected with the superintendence of a slave- 
holding Bishop out of the way, they could not possibly avoid con- 
vulsions and the loss of a very large number of members, and give 
various opportunities to their enemies in the majority of the 
[Northern] Conferences.* This was the firm conviction, he be- 
lieved, of the Conference. On this ground he rested the expedi- 
ency of this measure. 

Mr. Bowen (Oneida Conference) said that they deprecated the 
idea of division, but secession is preferable to schism [that is, a di- 
vision of the Church to division in the Church]; and if convulsions 
must he felt from center to circumference, the choice of evils must 
lead to secession rather than schism. The peace and prosperity of 
the entire body required this measure, and if any portion of the 
Church deem itself called to secede, however "we deprecate such 
an event, it is unavoidable." 

Mr. Coleman (Troy Conference) said give them a slave-holding 
Bishop, and you make the whole North a magazine of gunpowder. 
This matter had caused more trouble than any thing he had known 
to take place in the Church. 

Mr. Spencer (Pittsburgh Conference) said: "Fearful things are 
said about division; but if it comes, how can we help it?" 

Mr. Cass (New Hampshire Conference), not very consistently, 
charged the South with not knowing that, if the resolution passed, 
"the line of division would be drawn between the North and the 
South;" while in the same breath, answering the argument that 
its failure would be attended with less evil at the North than would 
follow its passage at the South, he said: "But we know the minds 
of our people on this subject, and if Bishop Andrew holds his 
office, there will be large secessions, or whole Conferences will 
leave.''' "If this Conference does any thing less than declare 
slavery a moral evil, we stand on a volcano at the North." 

Mr. Comfort (Oneida Conference) thought the Southern brethren 
mistaken when they said that, if the resolution should pass, and 
they submit to the disability it is thought to impose, they would 
not be received by their people. The South was a unit — would 
move together; their ministers could control them. But the case 

*For a fuller account, see Chapter I., p. 32, et seq. It will be remembered 
that Orange Scott, an itinerant preacher of considerable influence in New Eng- 
land, had withdrawn, gathered many followers, calling themselves " Wesley- 
ans. M and these were doing all they could to destroy'the Church, by holding 
it up as " pro-slavery." Dr. Elliott says that Scott had laid his plans to plun- 
der the Methodist Episcopal Church, and to seduce and kidnap as manv of 
her members as possible after the session of the General Conference. I have 
se^n it stated in the Christian Advocate and Journal that, when the Finley Reso- 
lution was passed, Scott was seated in the gallery of Greene Street Church, an 
interested spectator, and, when the issue was announced, said in effect, if not 
in form, " Othello's occupation's gone! " 



90 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

was different at the North; the people were not a unit, and the 
ministry could not control the diverse sentiment. Non-action 
would put an engine of tremendous power into the hands of their 
enemies, which they would ply with desperate force. 

Dr. Olin, speaking again, said he had made up his mind, soon 
after reaching the Conference, that the embarrassments were stu- 
pendous, if not insuperable. He had since made diligent inquiries 
of the brethren of the actual condition and sentiment of the 
Northern Churches, and what would be the results if things re- 
main as they are; he had refrained from going to Abolitionists — 
had gone to their opponents, and these declare, with one consent, 
that the difficulty is unmanageable and overwhelming. The most 
prudent men regard the present condition as pregnant with dan- 
ger, and as threatening manifold disasters and disaffection through- 
out the Methodist Episcopal Church. He had recently traveled 
three thousand miles in New England and New York, and his own 
opinion, formed by observation, was that if some action is not had 
on this subject to impart a sense of satisfaction to the people, there 
will be distractions and divisions ruinous to the people and fatal 
to the permanent interests of the Church. "If this great diffi- 
culty," he said, "shall result in separation from our Southern 
brethren, we lose not our right hand merely, but our very heart's 
blood." 

Thus we see how the departure of the South was 
regarded as likely to be the alternative of saving the 
North. 

III. My next argument is derived from the opinions 
expressed by Southern Delegates during this debate. 
Having in vain tried measures of pacification — having 
sought to postpone action, and to appeal to the Church 
at large — now beseeching the Conference with pro- 
foundest feeling not to pass this Resolution, they faith- 
fully warned that body that they would, by action, 
bring ruin upon Southern Methodism — that their peo- 
ple would no longer accept a ministry that would sub- 
mit to see their Bishop proscribed for what was alleged 
against Bishop Andrew. 

Dr. Winans (Mississippi Conference) said: "The main point re- 
lied upon in this matter is the expediency of the course contem- 
plated. I will meet this by another argument on expediency. By 
the vote solicited by this resolution you will render it expedient — ■ 
nay more, you render it indispensable — nay more, you render it 
uncontrollably necessary — that as large a portion of the Church 
should — I dread to pronounce the word — but you understand me. 
Yes, you create an uncontrollable necessity that there should be a 
disconnection of that large portion of the Church from your body." 
At another time he said that the Southern men felt themselves 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 91 

pressed to the verge of a precipice, from which thej T were to he 
plunged into irretrievahle ruin hy the action of the majority. 

Dr. Pierce (Georgia Conference) said: "Pass this resolution, and 
the whole Southern States are hurled into confusion at once." 

Mr. Crowder (Virginia Conference) predicted a division of the 
Church if this resolution was passed. 

Mr. Drake (Mississippi Conference) desired the unity of the 
Church with all his heart, hut if the proposed course was pursued, 
that unity could not be maintained — the Church would certainly 
he divided. 

Dr. Longstreet (Georgia Conference): "The proposed course 
must necessarily result in the separation of the North from the 
South." 

Dr. Smith (Virginia Conference) said that the South did not de- 
sire division — that was the common sentiment. If it came, it 
must he forced on her. Submission to the contemplated action 
would put in jeopardy her missions to slaves, and close this door 
of usefulness. Sooner than submit to results so fatal, a division of 
our ecclesiastical jurisdiction would become a high and solemn 
duty. "We stand," he said, "on the grand conservative platform 
laid down by our fathers in the Book of Discipline. As long as 
you will permit us to occupy that ground in peace, we are con- 
tented and happy; but allow me to assure you that we have no 
more inheritance among you when you shall have driven us from 
this ground. Demolish this platform, and we are no longer of 
you." 

Dr. A. L. P. Green (Tennessee Conference) said: "When I have 
looked at our beloved Church as a mighty ship, well rigged and 
richly laden, standing before the breeze, moving on swiftly and 
smoothly toward her destined haven, I have felt my heart swell 
within me with joy and gratitude; but for the last few days I 
have seen her reeling beneath the storm, shipping heavy seas, and 
driven from her anchors. . . . I have prayed God to avert the 
threatening danger. I hope he will; yet it is hope against hope, 
made up mainly of desire, with a very lean supply of expectation." 

Dr. G. P. (Bishop) Pierce would allow, as had been affirmed 
again and again, that, in case of non-action, there may be secession 
in New England — Societies split or broken up, and immense dam- 
age done; but unless Bishop Andrew is passed free of censure of 
any kind, the days of Methodist unity are numbered. He would 
infinitely prefer that all New England should secede, or be set off, 
with her share of the Church-property — infinitely prefer it — rather 
than this Conference should proceed to make this ruthless invasion 
upon the connectional union and the integrity of the Church. 

Dr. Capers contemplated the results with a bleeding heart. 
Never had he suffered as in view of the evil which this measure 
threatens against the South. The agitation has already begun 
there; and "though our hearts were to be torn out of our bodies, 
it could avail nothing when once you have awakened the feeling 
that we cannot be trusted with the slaves. Once you have done 



92 The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 

this thing, you have effectually destroyed us. O close not this 
door! Shut us not out from this great work to which we have been 
so signally called of God. We ask for no concessions — we are 
ready to make any in our power to you. "We come not to you for 
ourselves, but for perishing souls" — "the souls of the negroes on 
our great Southern plantations." 

We might greatly multiply our extracts from the 
entreaties and warnings urged by the Southern Dele- 
gates, but there is no need. The result proved that 
they were not idle threats, uttered to alarm the North 
and stay its action. 

And since then a terrible proof of the sensitiveness 
of the entire South to pragmatism — to even apprehen- 
sion of it — on this vexed question of slavery has been 
given in a way the world will never forget. The Con- 
federate war is an incontestable proof that the South- 
ern Delegates understood their people, and dared not, 
for their work's sake, come home bringing any taint 
of suspicion on Southern Methodism that it was in the 
remotest way in alliance with the enemies of Southern 
institutions. 

My citations prove that the General Conference was 
in a strait — that if it passed the Finley Eesolution it 
would lose the South; if not, then the North. North- 
ern men, being in the majority, chose the former 
course — understandingly, advisedly. They saw the 
result, and intended to force the South to depart, if this 
were the necessary consequence — and they had every 
reason to expect it — of carrying out their intention to 
save the North. They intended the foreseen conse- 
quence upon the well-known principle of law, "the 
universal rule that a man shall be taken to intend that 
which is the necessary and immediate consequence of 
his act."* 

*Bouvier''s Law Dictionary — Art. "Intention." Another citation or two will 
not be out of place. Lord Ellenborough has said : " Every man must be taken 
to contemplate the ordinary consequences of his own act at the time the act 
was done." (Enqlish Common Law Reports, vol. lxxiv., pp. 96, 97.) "It is a 
universal principle that when a man is charged with doing an act of which the 
probable consequence may be highly injurious, the intention is an inference 
of the law resulting from the doin^of the act." " If it (any result or sequence) 
be the probable consequence of an act, he is answerable for it as if it were his 
actual object. If the experience of mankind must lead one to expect the re- 
sult, he will be answerable for it." {Broom on Common Law, p. oil.) "The 
law presumes that every person intends the natural, necessary, and even proba- 
ble, consequences of his act." (Bishop on Criminal Law, sec. 248, and citations.) 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 93 

It is no sufficient answer to this argument to say 
that if the Southern Delegates had prevailed, then 
it would have been within their intention to pro- 
duce whatever divisive sequence may have followed 
in the North. Let it be granted. Under the circum- 
stances they felt at liberty to save Methodism in the 
South if possible, in accordance with the principles 
and Constitution of the Church, at whatever cost to 
others. One speaker, we have seen, proposed to escape 
the dilemma by setting off New England, with her 
share of the propert} r . Eoth parties were now like 
two men in the waves, who, to escape, have seized the 
only plank at hand. It cannot sustain both. Each 
intends to secure it, if he can, for himself — though he 
knows that, doing so, the other drowns. He does 
not prefer this; but intending that himself shall be 
saved, he can but intend the inevitable result to the 
other — drowning. If their claims to the plank be 
equal, who shall say which of the two is wrong? If 
not equal, then the wrong, rests on him, whether he 
escape or drown, whose claims to it are the less. In 
like manner, this intention of both parties here — each 
to save itself at whatever unavoidable cost to the other 
party — may not be considered equally justifiable in 
both. It may be that only one was in the right — that 
one, for instance, whose opinions and votes on the Fin- 
ley Besolution were most fully justified by the "Con- 
stitution" of the General Conference and the rules and 
regulations heretofore adopted by that body for its 
government. Which party that was it does not be- 
long to my advancing argument to determine; though 
a just decision may, perhaps, be reached by studying 
thoroughly the general relations of the Church to the 
anti-slavery agitation, and of the Bishops to the Gen- 
eral Conference. The Southern opinion on these re- 
lations may be found in preceding chapters. But 
even though the opinions there advanced be erroneous, 
the error does not necessarily vitiate the facts, princi- 
ples, and arguments yet to be offered as to the subse- 
quent acts of the General Conference in providing for an 
amicable division of General Conference jurisdiction, 
nor the opinions respecting that act, and the relations 



94 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

consequent on it, that I shall hereafter advance. It 
may, therefore, be left an open question now, so far as 
my purpose is concerned, Which of the two parties was 
entitled to the benefit of being "saved" in the ship- 
wreck? 

This much, however, may be said : It does not be- 
come either Methodism now to condemn severely those 
fathers of the Church, whose position we can scarcely 
appreciate; much less can either Methodism now be 
justified in repudiating that action or its consequences 
to which these fathers felt themselves driven by the 
storm raging around them. That they felt themselves 
thus driven we believe is now fully established; and 
the inference that they passed the Finley Resolution 
with the intention to divide the Church, if that should 
be an inevitable result, is irresistible. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 95 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE PLAN OF SEPARATION PROPOSED AND ADOPTED. 

I RETURN to the proceedings of the General Con- 
ference of 1844, after Bishop Andrew's case had 
been finally disposed of — that history which lies at the 
base of all present controversy between the two Meth- 
odisms. 

It was established beyond controversy, I think, in the 
last chapter, that the majority of the G-eneral Confer- 
ence of 1844, seeing that — whatever its action on the 
Finley Resolution — commotions and divisions in one 
or the other section would follow, intended to secure its 
own section from fatal results, and that this involved 
necessarily the inseparable intention of accepting as a 
consequence a division of some kind between Northern 
and Southern Methodism. It was at once recognized, 
by both parties, as a strong probability, that the one 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Methodism in the United 
States was already beginning to sever itself, by neces- 
sity, into two independent jurisdictions, each with equal 
powers in their respective territories. From that mo- 
ment there are to be recognized two parties, negotiat- 
ing with each other the terms of a peaceful separation. 
All that I have written as to the intention of the ma- 
jority is corroborated by the purpose and result of 
these negotiations, wherein the Northern majority, at 
the instance of the Southern Delegates, immediately 
made liberal and sufficient provision, should a specified 
contingency arise, for such a separation without de- 
stroying the Methodist Episcopal Church, as such — a 
division of General Conference jurisdiction, leaving 



96 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

intact the essential unity of theoretic, practical, and 
aggressive Methodism, as it had heretofore existed. 

These negotiations will now engage attention. 

The Finley Eesolution was passed June 1, and on 
Monday, June 3, Dr. Capers offered a paper,* looking 
to that Conference inaugurating a divided jurisdiction — 
a General Conference for the slave-holding, and one for 
the non-slave-holding Conferences — each to be supreme 
within its own territory, and to have its own Bishops 
■ — the Publishing interests and Foreign Missions to be 
managed jointly. Without debate this paper was re- 
ferred to a committee — Capers, Winans, and Crowder, 

*The following is the paper of Dr. Capers: 

".fie it resolved, by the Delegates of all the Annual Conferences in General Con- 
ference assembled, That we recommend to the Annual Conferences to sus- 
pend the constitutional restrictions which limit the powers of the General 
Conference so far, and so far only, as to allow of the following alterations in 
the government of the Church— viz. : 

" I. That the Methodist Episcopal Church, in these United States and terri- 
tories, and the Republic of Texas, shall constitute two General Conferences, 
to meet quadrennially, the one at some place south, and the other north, of the 
line which now divides between the States commonly designated as tree States 
and those in which slavery exists. 

"2. That each one of the two General Conferences thus constituted shall 
have rail powers, under the limitations and restrictions which are now of force 
and binding on the General Conference, to make rules and regulations for the 
Church, within their territorial limits respectively, and to elect Bishops for 
the same. 

"3. That the two General Conferences aforesaid shall have jurisdiction as 
follows: The Southern General Conference shall comprehend the States of 
Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and the States and territories lying south- 
erly thereto, and also the Republic of Texas, to be known and designated by 
the title of the Southern General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church of the United States; and the Northern General Conference to com- 
prehend all those States and territories lying north of the States of Virginia, 
Kentucky, and Missouri, as above, to be known and designated by the title of 
the Northern General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the 
United States. 

"4. And be it farther resolved, That as soon as three-fourths of all the 
members of all the Annual Conferences vote on these resolutions, and shall 
approve the same, the said Southern and Northern General Conferences shall 
be deemed as having been constituted by such approval; and it shall be com- 
petent for the .Southern Annual Conferences to elect Delegates to said Southern 
General Conference to meet in the city of Nashville, Tenn., on the first of 
May, 1848, or sooner, if a majority of two-thirds of the members of the 
Annual Conferences composing that General Conference shall desire the 
same. 

"5. And be it farther resolved, as aforesaid, That the Book Concerns at New 
York and Cincinnati shall be held and conducted as the property and for 
the benefit of all the Annual Conferences as heretofore— the editors and agents 
to be elected once in four years at the time of the session of the Northern 
General Conference, and the votes of the Southern General Conference -to be 
cast by the Delegates of that Conference attending the Northern for that pur- 
pose. 

"0. And be it farther resolved, That our Church-organization for Foreign 
Missions shall be maintained and conducted jointly between the two General 
Conferences as one Church, in such manner as shall be agreed upon from 
time to time between the two great branches of the Church as represented in 
the said two Conferences." 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 97 

of the minority, and Porter, Filmore, Akers, Hamline, 
Davis, and Sandfbrd, of the majority. 

Dr. Capers returned this paper on the 5th, stating 
that the committee could not agree on a report which 
they judged would be acceptable to the Conference. 

In the afternoon of the same day Dr. Longstreet 
offered what is known as the "Declaration of the South- 
ern Delegates," which was signed by all the Delegates 
(fifty-one) of the slave-holding Conferences, except one 
from Texas, and by one from the Illinois Conference. 
This paper reads: 

The Delegates of the Conferences in the slave-holding States 
take leave to declare to the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church that the continued agitation on the subject of 
slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church, and the frequent 
action on that subject in the General Conference, and especially the 
extrajudicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which resulted, 
on Saturday last, in the virtual suspension of him from his office 
as Superintendent, must produce a state of things in the South 
which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of this General 
Conference over these Conferences inconsistent with the success of 
the ministry in the slave-holding States. 

Objection was made by Mr. Sandford to the word 
"extrajudicial." In justifying its use, Dr. Longstreet 
said: 

YVe have now the calmness of despair — this is thrown out as an 
olive-branch of peace. It is hoped that we can now meet on some 
common ground; for the thing is done, the mischief is accomplished; 
and now we are in a situation to come together, and, viewing the 
wreck, see what we can save from it. "We express our opinion that 
it is no longer desirable that this Conference have jurisdiction. 

Without any discussion, save as to the exception- 
able word, this paper, which was a mere "declaration," 
suggesting nothing, asking nothing, was, on motion of 
Dr. Elliott, referred to a "Committee of Nine " — singu- 
larly enough, the same persons, mostly,* to whom Dr. 
Capers's paper had been submitted. There was a pur- 
pose here which is to be explained hereafter. 

On the same day J. B. McFerrin (Tennessee Confer- 
ence) and T. Spicer (Troy Conference) offered the fol- 
lowing: 

*Dr. Capers, who was worn down, Mr. Sandford, who had given his opinion, 
and Mr. Davis, for some reason unknown to me, were substituted by Drs. Paine, 
Bangs, and Sargent. The others of the committee were those who had, in the 
morning, returned Dr. C.'s plan. 

5 



98 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into considera- 
tion the communication of the Delegates from the Southern Con- 
ferences be instructed — provided they cannot, in their judgment, 
devise a plan for an amicable adjustment of the difficulties now 
existing in the Church on the subject of slavery — to devise, if 
possible, a constitutional plan for a mutual and friendly division 
of the Church. 

T. Crowder's motion to strike out "constitutional" 
did not prevail, and the resolution passed.* 

On June 6 a protest against the action of the Finley 
Resolution was offered by the Southern Delegates, and 
a committee (after some changes— Durbin, Peck, and 
Elliott) appointed by the Conference to prepare a state- 
ment of facts connected with the proceedings in Bishop 
Andrew's case. 

The "Committee of Nine" reported on June 7. Ee- 
port laid on table, and called up on the next day, when 
Dr. Elliott moved its adoption. 

The Report began (after a slight amendment) as fol- 
lows : 

"Whereas, a Declaration has been presented to this General Con- 
ference, with the signatures of fifty-one Delegates of this body, from 
thirteen Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States, represent- 
ing that, for various reasons enumerated, the objects and purposes 
of the Christian ministry and Church-organization cannot be suc- 
cessfully accomplished by them under the jurisdiction of this Gen- 
eral Conference, as now constituted; and whereas, in the event of 
a separation, a contingency to which the Declaration asks attention 
as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this General Conference 
to meet the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest 
equity; therefore, 

1. Resolved, by the Delegates of the several Annual Conferences in 
General Conference assembled, That should the Annual Conferences 
in the slave-holding States find it necessary to unite in a distinct 
ecclesiastical connection, the following rule shall be observed with 

* Dr. J. T. Peck (Bishop P.), in the Methodist Quarterly Review, April, 1870, dis- 
putes the correctness of the official record here. He says that he opposed the 
resolution — " if division occurred, it must he entirely on the responsibility of 
those who effected it." He quotes from Dr. Hamline's Life, that he declared 
that he "would not go out with instructions to devise a plan to divide the 
Church." On being urged he consented to go, if the instructions read, "If 
the South should separate, to make provision, in such a contingency, to meet 
the emergency with Christian kindness and the strictest equity." Chance 
words, very happily recollected by somebody, and incorporated into the Plan 
of Separation ! Bishop P. recollects that Mr. H. corrected the language of the 
resolution, and the suggestion was accepted by the mover — "to inquire whether 
there be any constitutional method of dividing the funds of the Church." I 
believe that" Mr. H. did act as under this instruction, whether the amendment 
was inserted or not; and, as for the rest, it will not affect my argument, whether 
it be the record or the comment that is false. 



The Disruption of the M. B. Church. 99 

regard to the northern boundar}' of such Connection: All the So- 
cieties, stations, and Conferences adhering to the Church of tho 
South, by a vote of a majority of the members of said Societies, 
stations, and Conferences, shall remain under the unmolested pas- 
toral care of the Southern Church; and the ministers of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize Churches 
or Societies within the limits of the Church, South, nor shall they 
attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight therein, it being under- 
stood that the ministry of the South reciprocally observe the same 
rule in relation to stations, Societies, and Conferences adhering, by 
vote of a majority, to the Methodist Episcopal Church; provided, 
also, that this rule shall apply only to Societies, stations, and Con- 
ferences bordering on the line of division, and not to interior 
charges, which shall, in all cases, be left to the care of that Church 
within whose territory they are situated. 

This resolution was passed. Of the votes (146 ayes, 
16 nays)* there were from non-slave-holding Confer- 
ences, ayes 95; from non-slave-holding Conferences, 
nays 16 — majority 79; from slave-holding Conferences, 
ayes 51. More Northern than Southern ayes, 28, in 
the majority of 130 for passage. 

2. That ministers, local and traveling, of every grade and office 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, remain in 
that Church, or, without blame, attach themselves to the Church, 
South. 

The motion to amend by inserting "and private 
members" was laid on the table, and the second reso- 
lution was adopted by 139 yeas, 17 nays. 

The third item, usually called the "third resolu- 
tion," is framed differently from all the other items, 
except the first, as it, like that, has the "enacting 
clause," "Resolved, by the Delegates" etc. This style 
was adopted because it was to be a positive enactment 
of the General Conference, if passed in that body by a 
two-thirds vote, and was to be sent in this form to be 
acted upon by the Annual Conferences to get a "con- 
current" vote. The form shows that this resolution 
only was to be submitted to that ordeal. It reads : 

3. Resolved, by the Delegates of all the Annual Conferences in 

"The Journal gives 135 ayes to 18 nays. Actual count of recorded names 
gives the above figures, after changingVVebber from yea to nay — as he re- 
ported to Conference of 1848 that his vote went to record wrong. Several sim- 
ilar errors of count I correct here. I give Baltimore with non-slave-holding 
Conferences — as it did not come South, and disallowed slave-holding in its 
ministry. 



100 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

General Conference assembled, That we recommend to all the An- 
nual Conferences, at their first approaching sessions, to authorize 
a change of the Sixth Restrictive Article, so that the full clause 
shall read thus: "They shall not appropriate the produce of the 
Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any purpose other 
than for the benefit of thetraveling, supernumerary, superannuated, 
and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children, and to 
such other purposes as may be determined upon by the votes of two- 
thirds of the members of the General Conference" 

This resolution was passed by a vote of 146 ayes to 
10 nays. From non-slave-holding Conferences, ayes 
95; from non-slave-holding Conferences, nays 10 — ma- 
jority 85; from slave-holding Conferences, ayes 51. 
More Northern than Southern ayes, 34, in a majority of 
136 for passage. The change proposed was to add 
what is italicized above. If made, the General Con- 
ference could divide Book Concern property. 

This resolution, having thus received a two-thirds 
majority of the General Conference, was already an 
enacted change of the Eestrictive Article, so far as it had 
authority. As soon as concurred in by three-fourths 
of the voters in the Annual Conferences the change 
would be consummated, without a return of the ques- 
tion to the next General Conference. A report to the 
Bishops, and by them to the Church, would complete 
the enactment. This Conference seemed not to doubt 
the concurrence of the Conferences, for it proceeded 
to add other items, conforming their action to the 
probable future change. They resolved that, in the 
event of concurrence, 

4. The Agents at New York and Cincinnati were authorized to 
deliver to any authorized agent or appointee of the Church, South, 
certain properties therein specified. 

5. A certain proportion — the rule for ascertaining it being stated 
— "of the capital and produce" of the Book Concern should be 
turned over to said agent of the Church, South. 

The fourth item carried, vote not stated. The vote 
on the fifth item was 151 ayes, 13 nays. From non- 
slave-holding Conferences, ayes 101; from non-slave- 
holding Conferences, nays 13 — majority 88; from slave- 
holding Conferences, ayes 50. More Northern than 
Southern ayes, 38, in a majority of 138 affirmative votes. 
Other items contained the provisions for dividing the 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 101 

Book Concern property, should separation take place 
and the Conferences "concur:" 

6. Regulated the form and time of the payments to Southern 
Church — the South to share meanwhile in net profits. 

7. Appointed — when "blank was filled — Drs. Bangs, Peck, and 
Einley, commissioners, "with full powers to carry into effect the 
whole arrangements proposed with regard to the division of the 
property." 

8. Authorized the Book Agents at New York to act in concert 
with Southern agents, when appointed, "so as to give the pro- 
visions of these resolutions a legally "binding force." 

This General Conference went thus far toward con- 
summating separation, as soon as the South had acted, 
and its own vote on the Eestrictive Article was con- 
curred in — thus far that body actually consummated 
it, these contingencies being supposed met. It did 
more. It relinquished all claim to all property in the 
South held in common trust — it not being under the 
protection of the Sixth Eestrictive Article — on the sole 
contingency that a Southern organization should be 
consummated. It said: 

9. That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference-funds, 
cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the Southern 
organization, shall be forever free from any claim set up on the part 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can he 
of force in the premises. 

10. Gave the Church, South, an interest in the copyrights of 
Book Concerns in New York and Cincinnati. 

11. Instructed Book Agents at New York to compensate Southern 
Conferences for their dividends in the Chartered Fund. 

And now this Conference can do no more toward 
effecting a separation, except to say: 

12. That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part 
of this Report requiring the action of the Annual Conferences before 
them as soon as possible, beginning with the New York Con- 
ference. 

All these items, and then the preamble, were adopted 
— the count not given. 

This was noble; and no wonder that the Southern 
Delegates thought there would be & peaceable division 
of jurisdictions, seeing that from foundation to cap- 
stone, from inception* to completion, it was the North- 

*This fact will be made to appear more fully hereafter. 



102 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

em brethren who did all this; for, by a majority, above 
the combined Southern affirmative and Northern nega- 
tive vote — varying from 28 to 38 — 

1. They provided for a peaceful partition of border 
work. 

2. They released all preachers from allegiance to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church — their portion of it — who 
should prefer to adhere South. 

3. They surrendered all claim to property within the 
Southern territory. 

4. They ordered a division of all the common property 
that they could control. 

5. They adopted, as "a part of the Eeport," a plan 
for getting control of, and dividing, the property 
guarded by a Eestrictive Article. 

6. The General Conference did all that, by the Con- 
stitution, it could do toward changing this Restrictive 
Article; and the Northern members alone gave within 
nine votes of the two-thirds majority required for said 
change. 

7. They requested the Bishops, as soon as possible, 
to lay before the Annual Conferences the resolution on 
which these were to act to consummate the change they 
had begun. 

8. Anticipating that the South would depart, and 
that the Annual Conferences would concur in chang- 
ing the Article, they appointed commissioners to arrange 
the division of the property, gave to them and to the 
Book Agents all needful instructions respecting such 
division; and they arranged "to give all these provis- 
ions a legally binding force." 

Truly may this be called a "Plan of Separation," an 
agreement, contract, compact, covenant — whatever one 
will — that no good man, as described by the psalmist, 
"who sweareth" even "to his own hurt and changeth 
not," should think of repudiating.* 

-This instrument is denied— so emergent is the need to help out a weak 
cause — to be either a Plan of Separation or a " compact" — a word used at St. 
Louis by the Southern Bishops in their communication to those from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. With regard to the first point, their own office- 
bearers shall settle it. On March 3, 1847, at a meeting of the Bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, they not only fully recognized the Plan of Sepa- 
ration by name, but gave their official interpretation of some of its provisions. 
As to the other point, I will attend to it hereafter. Dr. Whedon, in Methodist 
Quarterly Review, April, 1870, makes both objections. The first was borrowed 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 103 

And now comes the end. On Monday afternoon, 
June 10, the "Reply to the Protest" was reported by 
Dr. Durbin. At the evening session a motion was 
made to adopt it; a discussion followed, and finally it 
was ordered, by a vote of 116 to 26, that the Reply be 
spread upon the Journal. 

That act was the last in a long series of disputes be- 
tween the Methodism of the North and that of the 
South, as represented in the original General Confer- 
ence; and then that controversy between Northern 
and Southern Methodists, as such, however variant 
their opinions as citizens, ought properly to have 
ended. The differences between the two sections, 
from that moment, take u a new departure," and here- 
after they find their only legitimate center in the Plan 
of Separation — its meaning, its purpose, its conditions, 
its results. All other questions between the Churches 
are hut secondary to those involved in that instru- 
ment. 

At a quarter past twelve o'clock on the night of 
June 10, 1844, the ninth and last ecumenical delegated 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
of the United States adjourned sine die, and neither 
that body nor its direct successor has ever since met. 
It was legitimately succeeded, as by agreement, by 
two like bodies, independent of each other — each 
vested with all its powers over the same membership 
it had heretofore legislated for, but in a divided terri- 
tory — one body with its constituency inheriting its 
name, the other, to avoid confusion, affixing to that 
name the convenient geographical designation "South" 
■ — both inheriting its Discipline, its purpose, its work, 
its obligations, its prerogatives, its rights, and its du- 
ties, each within its respective territory. 

Note. — And now, while waiting on the printers, I find much 
that I have written respecting the inevitability of this separation 
corroborated by one who has done more to make it an occasion of 
strife than perhaps any other living man. I find in the Southern 
Christian Advocate, of April 21, 1875, a recent editorial from the 
Christian Advocate and Journal, in which Dr. Curry says: 

from Dr. Elliott. The title is said to have been prefixed to the document by 
the reporter— these cavil ers forgetting, however, that the Journal and De- 
bates all constitute an official documenfof the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



104 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

The separation made thirty years ago was for valid and sufficient reasons; 
nor was the existence of slavery more than its remote cause; and the action 
of the General Conference of 1844, in the case of Bishop Andrew, way only the. 
occasion for the denouement, which was certain, aside from that case, to come 
at that time, or very soon afterward. The separation was not the resuit of 
accidents, nor of incidents, nor of any extrinsic agencies. The dividing forces 
in the Methodism of thirty years ago, like those that disrupted the nation 
nearly twenty years later, were from within, and their development with the 
growth of the'body made the division a necessity. "Two nations" lay to- 

§ w «'ther in the womb of early American Methodism, and while there " the chil- 
ren struggled together within her," and their separation was a prerequisite 
to their peace and increase. To separate is in some cases a high and sacred 
duty; and to do so without a breach of charity often calls for the highest of 
wisdom and real goodness. No nobler exhibition of his true greatness is 
given in the whole history of the patriarch Abraham than in the separation 
between himself and his kinsman and hitherto life-long associate, when, in 
language worthy of himself, he said, without the least trace of bitterness, 
" Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me." 

Had the writer learned this wisdom thirty years ago, his life had 
perhaps been as full of peace as it has been of war; and he would 
never have lent himself to be a prime agent in the repudiation of 
1848. The South maintained then, as she does now, that "to sep- 
arate had become a high and sacred duty;" and in 1844 the North 
gave an exhibition of "true greatness" "without the least trace of 
bitterness," when it declared it "a duty to meet the emergency with 
Christian kindness and the strictest equity," "should the Annual 
Conferences in the slave-holding States find it necessary to unite 
in a distinct ecclesiastical connection.-' And then accordingly the 
two sections proceeded to make such a covenant of peace as Abra- 
ham and Lot made, called the "Plan of Separation," the very 
covenant now in controversy between these "two" congenital 
"nations." 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 105 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE COKDITIOKS OF THE PLAK OF SEPABATIOK. 

IT cannot now be doubted that the G-eneral Confer- 
ence of 1844 did all it could do to effect a peaceable 
separation of Methodism, so as to place it under the 
control of two independent jurisdictional centers — 
except to inaugurate arid consummate the actual sep- 
aration. This it left to the Conferences in the slave- 
holding States to do. It enacted a "rule" which 
"shall be observed," "should" these Annual Conferences 
"find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical 
connection." The last chapter shows how far the Con- 
ference went toward perfecting the divisive scheme. 
It only remained for two conditions to be fulfilled, and 
an amicable separation of Church and property would 
be consummated in conformity to this act. After that, 
it needed only that the designated agents set to work 
to perfect the details. The question now is, Did the 
privilege of a peaceful separation depend on one only 
of the conditions set? or was it made dependent on 
the fulfillment of both? The conditions demanded 
two votes, and my position is: 

1. That separation per se was conditioned, by the 
Plan, solely upon its being inaugurated and consum- 
mated by the votes of the slave-holding Conferences. 
That done, then the action of the General Conference 
had already divided Methodism between two independ- 
ent jurisdictions. 

2. That only a division of the property held in trust 
for all the Conferences — Book Concern property — was 
conditioned upon a vote of all the Conferences; that it 

5* 



106 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

was not intended that that vote should be considered 
as either concurring or non-concurring (as the result 
might be) with the action of the General Conference 
on the entire Plan; and that concurrence was not 
necessary to give sanction to the separation, but 
would only have been proof that it was to be effected 
peacefully. 

The negative of this last proposition furnishes the 
only possible ground for considering Southern Method- 
ism an unauthorized secession; and I shall vindicate her 
by an exhaustive and, I believe, a triumphant argu- 
ment. 

I. The Plan itself shows the fact. It is divisible into 
two parts, each of which begins with what may be 
called an "enacting clause" — "Resolved, by the Dele- 
gates" etc. The first part contains two items: (1) 
"Should the Annual Conferences of the slave-holding 
States find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesias- 
tical connection, the method of ascertaining the line 
of division shall be," etc.; (2) "Ministers of every 
grade may adhere to either Connection 'without 
blame.'" 

Then, after another "Resolved, by the Delegates" etc., 
leading a resolution — usually named "the third reso- 
lution " — looking to a change of the Sixth Restrictive 
Article, follow several items providing specifically (1) 
for an immediate division of the Book Concern prop- 
erty "whenever the Annual Conferences, by a vote of 
three-fourths, . . . shall have concurred in the rec- 
ommendation to alter" this Article; (2) surrendering 
to the Southern organization all title the General Con- 
ference may hold in "meeting-houses, parsonages," 
etc., within the Southern limits; (3) dividing interest 
in "copyrights," and "Chartered Fund;" and (4) re- 
questing the Bishops "to lay that part of this Report re- 
quiring the action of the Annual Conferences before 
them as soon as possible.". 

Did the Bishops understand this last item? How 
did they proceed "to lay that part of the Beport re- 
quiring the action of the Annual Conferences before 
them?" It was by asking a vote on the change of the 
Bestrictive Article, and on that alone. The inference 



The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 107 

is beyond question. The Conferences at large were to 
have a voice only on that one point — the Southern 
Conferences alone on the question of division. 

This ought to be enough, but I have other proofs of 
my proposition. 

II. My next proof I bring from the debate on the 
report of the Committee of Nine.* 

Dr. Capers's proposition, which was submitted to, 
and returned by, the first Committee of Nine as im- 
practicable, was a proposition to suspend the Restrict- 
ive Articles so as to change the Constitution of the 
General Conference, and it was to be enacted by two- 
thirds of that Conference, and then sent down to all 
the Annual Conferences for a three-fourths vote — a 
process entirely similar to that whereby certain changes 
could be made, otherwise inhibited by the Restrictive 
Articles, which, however, did not contemplate, and 
made no provision for, so fundamental a change as this 
now proposed. Hence it was returned: 

1. Because "unconstitutional." f 

* Indeed, so far was (his Report from contemplating a reference of the ques- 
tion to all the Conferences, that it provided that " should the Delegates from 
the Conferences in the slave-holding States find it necessary," etc. And so, 
after the Plan was discussed, the vote was taken; and, by 146 ayes to 23 nays, 
the decision of the necessity " to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection " 
was left with these Delegates present. This vote was reconsidered, on Dr. 
Paine's motion, and the Southern Conferences substituted as umpires in place 
of the Delegates. When this vote was taken, who dreamed that this was a 
question for'all the Conferences to settle? Surely nobody. 

fThe Constitution of the General Conference says: " The General Confer- 
ence shall have full powers to make rules and regulations for our Church, under 
the following limitations and restrictions. These are: 1. For conserving the 
Articles of Religion. 2. Fixing the ratio of representation in the General Con- 
ference. 3. Respects the maintaining of Episcopacy, and of the plan of Gen- 
eral Superintendency. 4. Conserves the General Rules. 5. Establishes priv- 
ilege of preachers and members to trial by committee and appeal. 6. Prohibits 
appropriation of produce of Book Concern, etc. Provided, however, that any 
of the above restrictions, except the first, may be altered by a two-thirds vote 
of the General, and a three-fourths vote of the Annual Conferences." The Gen- 
eral Conference might first pass upon the matter and send down to Annual Con- 
ferences, and their concurrence give effect to the regulation; or a proposed 
change might take the opposite course. " Constitutional," then, as under- 
stood in this discussion, was whatever was done that did not infringe these 
restrictions, or was proposed to be done within their literal provisions. That 
was '• unconstitutional " which the restrictions forbade, or which was not con- 
templated by them, or by the provision that regulated their alteration. It is 
impossible to understand some of the arguments used in this discussion, un- 
less we suppose that some speakers meant by " unconstitutional," " not of 
the Constitution"—" not provided for by its letter." How else could it have 
been unconstitutional to submit Dr. Capers's plan to the only process by which 
certain features of the Constitution could be altered? To submit and vote on 
it in an Annual Conference, the fountain of General Conference authority, and 
to pass it round and carry it up with a three-fourths vote to a General Confer- 
ence, would not be unconstitutional; and the reverse process could not have 



108 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

2. Because, if passed by this General Conference by 
the requisite majority, that body would itself have in- 
augurated division, and then and there have done all 
it could ever do toward consummating it. 

And yet. within two days, a committee made up of 
almost the same persons reported a Plan which not only 
gave the two General Conferences proposed by Dr. Ca- 
pers, but went farther, by providing for a total division 
of labors and property, which the other did not suggest 
— the difference in other respects being that not by a 
vote of the General Conference, but by that of the 
South, was the division inaugurated; and the objection 
of unconstitutionality being avoided by sending down 
to the Conferences for their concurrence only a meas- 
ure respecting property, which came within the literal 
provisions of the Constitution. 

In the debate that this Plan elicited, four questions 
were in view : 

1. Was this measure constitutional? 

2. Did the Plan contemplate a schismatic division 
of the Church — a dissolving of its essential elements 
so as to destroy its power and usefulness as a Church? 
or was it only an authorized separation of the central 
jurisdiction into two parts, leaving Methodism, as an 
ecclesiastical power, unimpaired under this divided ju- 
risdiction? 

3. What effect would a generous vote now on this Plan 
have in arresting schism and premature dissolution at 
the South — thus preserving the unity of Southern 
Methodism by giving proof that Northern Methodists 
had not pushed the South to unavoidable separa- 
tion — to secession — and then withheld its sanction to 
separation, and to the South receiving its proportion 
of the common property? 

4. What effect would an early vote on the Sixth [Re- 
strictive Article by the Annual Conferences have in 
arresting disorder and schism in the South — preserving 
unity, and especially the missions — and whether their 
concurrence should be asked at once,* or their vote de- 
been unconstitutional, except that the letter of the Constitution made no pro- 
vision for the General Conference setting on foot such a proposition. 

* The [Northern Conferences be.can on June 12 with New York, and the entire 
round was completed with New Jersey, April 22, 1845— wanting but some six 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 109 

layed until after the Southern Conferences had acted 
on the question of separation? 

We now turn to the discussion, some of the speakers 
discussiDg one point, some another.* 

Dr. Elliott, in moving the adoption of the Eeport on the ground 
of expediency, said that it was found necessary to separate this 
large body, for it was becoming unwieldy. The measure was not 
schism, but separation for their mutual convenience and prosperity. 
The Churches would be distinct, yet one, as were the Eastern 
Churches in early days. 

Mr. Griffith opposed, because "they dared not refer this question 
[of separation] to [all] the Annual Conferences, as the Constitu- 
tion required them to do, but they put it on a very different issue — 
viz.: when a majority of that Conference thought it [separation] 
expedient, then the Annual Conferences were to be applied to to 
distribute the property of the body." He denied that any body had 
a right to divide the Church. He wanted the people to know which 
Delegates, sent there for other purposes, consented to the separation 
of this great body of Methodists. 

Mr. Cartwright: They had no authority conferred on them, either 
directly or indirectly, to divide the Church. He wanted yeas and 
nays called. 

Mr. Finley could see in the Eeport no proposition to divide the 
Church [only the property?]. Nor did he see any thing unconsti- 
tutional in it [no proposition to go to the Annual Conferences that 
the Constitution did not send there]. The Constitution did not re- 
quire them to send abroad a proposition to divide the Church [such 
as Dr. C.'s proposition was]; and it would, therefore, be unconsti- 
tutional [not of the Constitution — not covered by its letter] to send 
such a proposition to the Annual Conferences. This division was 

weeks of a year. " The Conferences in the slave-holding States," sitting 
principally in the autumn and winter, literally included (in part) the Baltimore 
and Philadelphia Conferences, which sat just prior to the IS T ew Jersey Confer- 
ence. To begin with New York would carry the vote round in one" year; to 
begin with New Jersey would postpone action on the Restrictive Article for 
nearly a year, and then it would be nearly another year before it would have 
come" before all the Conferences. Which course was the better ? was one point 
discussed. 

*I have carefully endeavored to reach the true meaning of the speakers. 
The reports are brief, and are certainly not free from mistakes. If it be 
claimed that the official records are wrong, I may claim some errors in the re- 
ports of extempore speeches— indeed, some misunderstanding from want of 
explicitness in speech, where the speakers knew that they were intelligible to 
each other. The editor of the Debates (Dr. Peck) admits that there may be 
some errors in them. I have taken from the speeches only passages pertinent 
to the questions above stated, most generally in the speakers' own words, al- 
ways in their sense. Instead of stopping to comment on each, I have in- 
cluded what I conceived the meaning in brackets, or put words to be noted in 
italics. I may say generally that, here and elsewhere, I have italicized words 
and passages', not so marked in the original, where I have wished to call 
special attention to them. It saved space to treat them in this way ; but I be- 
lieve that I have in no instance perverted a speaker's or writer's meaning by 
so dom?. If complaint is made, I am willing to forego the advantage thus 
gained by emphasis; for I seek only the truth. 



110 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

like that of the American Churches from English "Wesleyanism, 
and of the Canada Conference from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

Mr. Hamline explained the action of the committee in respect 
to the Restrictive Article. When the first committee [on Dr. C.'s 
Plan] met, they had before them a paper which proposed a new 
form, or division, of the Church. There were difficulties in it. 
One provision was to send it to the Annual Conferences, but that 
was unconstitutional and revolutionary [originating new questions 
to send round which the Constitution had not expressly provided 
for]; and when their votes came back, the General Conference 
would have no more authority than they had now [to divide the 
Book Concern property, since suspending the Constitution (which 
the Plan proposed) so far as to form two General Conferences would 
not be altering the Article in such way as, even in that case, to 
permit the Conference to divide the property].* Any proposition 
[that did not change the Article] would leave the property with 
the original body, though divided off till but one State remained 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church. But if they sent out to the 
Annual Conferences to alter o?ie Restrictive Article, it would be consti- 
tutional to divide the Book Concern property, so that they might be 
honest. The resolution makes provision, if the Conferences con- 
cur, for the security and efficiency of the Southern Church [by 
sharing the property with it]. And the committee thought it 
could not be objected to on the ground of constitutionality [seeing 
that it was one of the questions the Constitution submitted to the 
Conferences]. He, for one, wanted his name recorded affirming 
them brethren, if they found they must separate. 

Dr. Bond presumed no one would contend that there was any 
constitutional provision for the separation of one part of the Church 
from another [no provision in the Restrictive Articles to send such 
a question to the Conferences]; and if the necessity of the case 
now required separation, it could only be justified by the adage that 
"necessity has no law." If it must come, "let us provide for peace 
through the Churches, and part in such a spirit that we can coop- 
erate in the great work in which we are all engaged." 

Dr. Bangs explained that the committee were instructed by the 
Conference to provide for separation, if they could not adjust the 
difficulties amicably. They had obeyed instructions — had met the 
constitutional difficulty by sending round to the Conferences that 
portion of the Report which required, their concurrence. The Report 
did not speak of division — the word had been carefully avoided — 
but said "in the event of a separation taking place" — throwing the 
responsibility off that Conference upon those who should declare 
a separation necessary. It was a choice between the violent sep- 
aration of the South and its peaceable and amicable separation — 

-See Chapter III. for Dr. Hamline's opinion as to the supreme power the 
General Conference already had to legislate on any subject not barred by the 
Restrictive Articles. He certainly means here thai to submit any question not 
thus inhibited was "unconstitutional and revolutionary," as did Mr. Finley, 
or else they are both unintelligible, and Dr. II. is self-contradictory. " 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. Ill 

the less evil. The laws, doctrine, discipline, government, all would 
be the same in both Churches. 

Mr. Filmore spoke of the opinions of both parties — the South 
feared hinderance in "spreading scriptural holiness" in one event; 
the North feared like hinderance in another; Methodism, a child 
of Providence always, would divide "into two bands" — thus ad- 
justing herself to circumstances. The resolutions do not force the 
South away, but simply provide that, in such a contingency, it 
shall have the munitions of war. 

Mr. Sandford was opposed to providing now for division of the 
property. When the South had taken its course, it would be time 
enough to tell the South what they would do. The course now 
proposed was an encouragement to separation. 

Dr. Luckey regarded the resolution as settling nothing now, but 
providing in an amicable and proper way for future action. Sep- 
aration was better than a continuation of strife and warfare. 

Mr. Collins approved the Keport. He hoped separation would 
not come, but if it must come, let there be ajoro rata division of the 
Book Concern. 

Mr. Porter thought "the time was coming when separation must 
take place. The difficulty was greater now than four years ago, 
and must increase." The South could take no action upon it 
[could not claim the property] until the Annual Conferences had 
decided respecting the Eestrictive Article; and if there were any 
thing radically wrong, they could arrest it there [which they did, 
defects or not]. 

Here is an outline of the opinions of all the North- 
ern members who spoke on the first nine resolutions, 
and there is not a word to indicate that separation was 
conditioned upon the passage of the Eestrictive Article, 
but much to prove that it was deemed "unconstitu- 
tional" to ask concurrence on any other part of the 
Eeport of the committee. To the same effect is the 
only speech that was made by a Southern Delegate: 

Dr. Paine said there is not in any government a provision made 
to divide itself [and so none such to be looked for among the Ee- 
strictive Articles]; and, consequently, if division came, it must be 
rather by violence, or else by common consent in a peaceful man- 
ner. The South was thrown into a peculiar attitude. Brethren 
who lived nearer than he had heard that their people were much 
excited. The possibility of separation could not be denied, and 
this measure was taken to effect it pleasantly. The South had re- 
sorted to this measure to avoid a greater calamity. If found neces- 
sary to keep down faction and prosecute their ministry at home, 
they should feel bound to separate — to carry out the provisions of 
this enactment — but not unless they were driven to it [to secure 
this quiet]. The separation [of Church and property] would not 
be effected [consummated] by the passage of these resolutions 



112 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

through the General Conference. They must pass the Annual 
Conferences, beginning at New York; and when they came round 
to the South [where the Conferences sat late in the year], the 
preachers there would think and deliberate, and feel the pulse of 
public sentiment and of the members of the Church, and act in 
the fear of God and with a single desire for his glory. They had 
no revolutionary designs, but desired to go home to their people 
prepared to satisfy their demands, and prepared for the worst. 
They should be one people until it was formally announced by a 
Convention of the Southern Churches that they had resolved to ask 
an organization according to the provisions of this Keport. Twelve 
or eighteen months would elapse ere they [the Southern Confer- 
ences and Convention] could act in the premises, by which time the 
feverish excitement — if such it be — will have passed away. The 
Southern Delegates, however, felt seriously apprehensive that the 
necessity even now existed. Brethren who had heard from their 
people were alarmed at the increasing dissatisfaction among them; 
and all the Southern brethren desired was to have some ground to 
stand on when they got home [some offering to the South that 
would prevent disintegration of the Church]. This measure had 
been concocted in a spirit of compromise and fraternal feeling, in 
the hope of preventing agitation and schism.* 

When the tenth resolution came up in the afternoon, Dr. Durbin 
had understood that action was to commence at the South [and he 
was correct on the vote for separation per se], but by this resolu- 
tion it was to commence at New York next week, which, he said, 
had its disadvantages until the South had taken action and proved 
its necessity [by voting for separation]; and then there would be 
additional reason for the brethren in the North favoring it. He 
would substitute New Jersey Conference [which would meet in 
April, 1845].t 

*Dr. Paine, at the Louisville Convention, said that the separation was not 
schism — defining schism to be a movement in the Church, disturbing its peace 
and destroying its harmony. It was this he wished, and the Plan gave it to 
them. He' also, in the South-western (Nashville) Advocate, of August 2, 1844, 
speaking of the action of this Conference, says : " It was the wish of some of 
us to separate only so far as to have two General Conferences, thus simply di- 
viding the great field of labor, and leaving to each section of the work the 
regulation of its own affairs; but such a Plan was not acceptable to the com- 
mittee. The sir brethren from the non-slave-holding Conferences exerted their influ- 
ence to procure the adoption of the Plan of the General Conference. In adopting the 
Plan, the Conference has so sanctioned the organization" of a Methodist Episco- 
pal Church in the South that, should it be effected, they will be bound to re- 
gard us as an integral part of the real Methodist family. And should the 
change be effected by the Annual Conferences in the Sixth Restrictive Article, 
as recommended by the General Conference, the South will receive her pro- 
portion of the property and funds of the Church, amounting to $:5u0,000." Dr. 
Elliott's disingenuousness is shown by his copying only the last sentence of 
this letter to prove that Dr. Paine thought the sanction of separation was sus- 
pended on the change of this Article. 

f That Dr. Durbin agreed with Dr. Paine as to the fact that the Southern 
Conferences alone may "decide the question of separation under the Plan, not- 
withstanding this temporary difference as to details, is proved by a letter in 
the Christian Advocate and Journal, October 1G, 1844, where Dr. D. 'writes: "As 
spparation is deemed very probable, under stress of necessity, as declared by 
the South, the resolutions were passed as a peace measure asked by the South', 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 113 

Dr. Paine explained that, if this amendment were adopted, it 
would be nearly twelve months before the Conferences would begin 
to act on the change of the Restrictive Article, and another twelve 
months before the question could go round to all the Conferences, 
and thus two years would elapse "before the South would know 
whether they had leave [not to separate — this was for them, to de- 
cide — but] ■peacefully to separate." 

Dr. Capers said the Church at home was not calm; that this was 
a compromise measure, designed to effect that peaceably which other- 
wise, he feared, would be done violently. Every mail increased the 
apprehension of the Southern brethren. They stood like men at 
the death. If the Conference suspended action too long, it would 
come too late, and would not save them [from the popular indig- 
nation excited against Methodism by the action of that General 
Conference]. 

Dr. "Winans said "it would be observed that there was only one 
provision of this whole Report that went to the Annual Confer- 
ences, and that merely authorized the appropriation of the proceeds 
of the Book Concern otherwise than as now appropriated. They 
were not sending round to the Annual Conferences any propo- 
sition in which the action of the South in reference to separation 
is concerned." 

Dr. Durbin withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. Hamline said that the Article referred to the Annual Con- 
ferences had not necessarily any connection with division — they 
had carefully avoided presenting [to the Annual Conferences] any 
resolution which would embrace the idea of separation or division. 
On other grounds it was thought well to alter this Restrictive Ar- 
ticle. 

Mr. Filmore said the views of the committee had been fully ex- 
plained. The Restrictive Article ought to be changed in any 
event. 

Although the only passage of this entire discussion 
used to prove that the vote on the Restrictive Article 
was understood to be a vote on the merits of the Plan 
as a whole is quoted fully among the above extracts, I 
think the careful reader will see that they, taken as a 
whole, entirely overthrow that opinion. On the con- 
trary, it proves that this last ecumenical General Con- 
ference intended to agree to a peaceful departure of 
the Southern Conferences from its jurisdiction at their 
own option alone; that it was not submitted to the An- 
nual Conferences to confirm this action in order to 

and were intended [not, as perverted interpretation says, to prevent .separation, 
but] to abate, if not wholly prevent, the evils which were apprehended in case the 
South should find it necessary to separate. The warrant for separation is not in the 
resolutions of the General Conference, but, if it t-xist at all, it is in the necessity of the 
case, of which the Church in the South must be the judge.'''' 



114 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

make the act valid; but that it was only designed to 
secure, by their vote, an equitable division of the prop- 
erty held in common. 

III. That the concurrence of the Annual Conferences 
was not deemed necessary to give validity to the Plan 
of Separation is established by the discussions of the 
framers of that Plan. Eut I propose to add farther 
proof from opinions given by the Northern actors in 
this memorable conclave. 

I call up the Commissioners appointed to carry out, 
contingently, the purpose of the Conference — Drs. 
Bangs,* Peck, and Finley. Dr. Tomlinson wrote to 
these gentlemen, through the Western Christian Advo- 
cate, of November 1, 1844, asking some questions, un- 
important to us here, but the answers involved their 
construction of the purpose of the Plan. Drs. Bangs 
and Peck answered, November 8, much at length. The 
document is found in Great Secession. We give a few 
passages: 

The General Conference only provided for the apparently proba- 
ble contingency that a separate organization would take place by 
the action of the Southern Conferences; and, should such separate 
organization actually occur, marked the line of division and fixed 
the terms on which it should finally be settled. . . . We do 
not understand that these Conferences will put themselves in the 
attitude of a secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, pro- 
vided they divide according to the Plan laid down by the General 
Conference. . . . We conclude that it is left entirely with the 
slave-holding Conferences whether they will form a separate or- 
ganization or remain in the Methodist Episcopal Church. If they 
resolve on separation, and carry their resolution into effect, accord- 
ing to the Plan fixed by the General Conference, peaceably and in 
good faith; and if three-fourths of all the votes, present and voting 
on the resolution, authorize the division in the event of a separation, 
then they will be entitled to their share of the property. . . . 
It will be seen by the resolutions that the General Conference pro- 
vided for carrying the conditions of the separation into complete 
effect by the Book Agents and Commissioners, without waiting for 
any additional powers, so soon as the separate organization is 
formed by the action of the Southern Conferences, and the Agents 

- :: Dr. Bangs had previously — September 18, 1844 — written to the Christian Ad- 
vocate and Journal that, " at the General Conference, the facts forced it on his 
mind with irresistible conviction that union, under the circumstances, was 
impracticable. He rejoiced that the committee, of which he was a member, 
adjusted the matter so that should the South find it necessary to separate themselves 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, it would be done in a peaceful manner." 
(Great Secession, p. 380.) 



The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 115 

and Commissioners are authorized to discharge their duties "by 
the change of the Kestrictive Article." [Great Secession, p. 1058.) 

Dr. Finley goes so far even as to make the General 
Conference provide for the secession of the South — 
that dreadful crime now attributed to it as the un- 
pardonable ecclesiastical sin. He writes, November 
12, 1844, 

That his understanding was that the division of the Book Con- 
cern, etc., was to be made if the South should secede. Dr. Capers 
presented resolutions for an amicable division of the Church, which 
were not carried, and it was stated that the South would have to 
secede; and the resolutions of the Committee of Nine. were passed 
in direct reference to such a result; or why should it be necessary 
to alter the Sixth Kestrictive Article, unless it was to enable those 
who might secede to obtain their proportion of the stock? 

Did these Commissioners think the concurrence of 
the Conferences a condition antecedent to making 
valid the action of the Southern Conferences, should 
they "form, a separate organization," as Drs. B. and P. 
wrote, or "secede," as Dr. F. wrote? u Credat Judceus 
Apella!" 

IV. I proceed to fortify my position farther by show- 
ing that when the Northern Conferences were voting 
on the resolution for changing the Article, they did 
not understand that they were voting concurrence or 
non-concurrence on the entire Plan. Dr. Elliott gives 
the action of fourteen of them, and to his book I refer 
for particulars. Not one of them so declared itself. 
Some voted for concurrence, explaining or resolving at 
the same time that they were opposed to division. 
Some voted non -concurrence, on the ground that to 
concur would encourage the South to depart; but if 
she would depart, they could divide the property after- 
ward. Some "non-concurred" because they preferred 
the Article as it stood; but not a man — at least not a 
Conference — seemed to have sagacity enough to say: 
"The South looks to our vote, in addition to that of the 
General Conference, to justify their departure from us; 
and by non-concurring, we negative the action of the 
General Conference on the entire Plan of Separation. 
The question was, by that body, left to us as the ulti- 
mate constituency, having plenary power to decide, 



116 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

and we do not concur because we intend, by our negative 
vote, to defeat the entire scheme." Did the one thou- 
sand one hundred and sixty-four members* of non- 
slave-holding Conferences who voted for concurrence 
believe they were voting on the merits of the entire 
question — voting for division? Did those Conferences 
which postponed action for a year, because they would 
wait to see the course the South would take, think that 
their vote was needed, in part, to settle the question 
of division? How could conscientious men, charged 
with high responsibilities, knowing that their votes 
were to be counted either for or against the separation 
of the Southern Conferences (to which they were op- 
posed), either vote for the change of the Eestrictive 
Article — or postpone altogether until their vote would 
be worthless — or vote against it, on any less ground 
than thus wholly to annul the action of the General 
Conference? No; to suppose that they thus acted, 
with such a belief, is an aspersion upon them. 

How, on the theory I am combating, shall we ac- 
count for the action of the Providence Conference, 
held within a month after the Plan was passed? That 
Conference voted unanimously for the change, yet said 
that the General Conference has no power to divide 
the Church — that "the present act provides for the 
separation as a contingency to be brought about by the 
South alone. . . . Yet the General Conference 
abets, and virtually enacts, the division while it ac- 
knowledges that it has no right to make it." Did that 
Conference, when giving its unanimous concurring 
vote, believe that it was voting on the entire Plan, 
and thus "abetting and virtually enacting the divis- 
ion" to which it was opposed? Surely men could not 
so stultify themselves. Let Dr. Stevens, a leading 
member, explain for them, in Ziorts Herald, of July 17, 
1844: 

Were there a hope of effectually checking that Plan by our re- 
fusal of the alteration of the Sixth Article [that it could not have 

*T have found no official record in the Journal of this vote. It is given in 
an extract from a speech of Dr. Durbin in Great Secession. A majority, but not 
three-fourths, of the Northern preachers voted for concurrence. The vote is 
stated to be: For concurrence — Northern Conferences, 1,164; Southern, 971; 
total, 2,135. For non-concurrence, 1,070. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 117 

been done by a three-fourths vote against it is here assumed], we 
should do so by all the regard for the integrity of our polity and 
the rights of the people; but the Plan is enacted [mark what we 
here emphasize — is already enacted — fully passed] — our action will 
not deter the South; let us not incur the charge of parsimony and 
meanness by a pecuniary consideration. Still we may qualify our 
consent — we may prevent its being interpreted into a sanction of 
the General Plan — by accompanying it with suitable resolutions, 
or statements, as the Providence Conference has done. 

But if the vote for or against concurrence was, in 
effect, a vote for or against "the G-eneral Plan," what 
need for qualification? Would not the vote explain 
itself? Could their assertion of hostility to the G-en- 
eral Plan neutralize the effect of their vote for it, had 
this, indeed, been believed to be the purport of this 
vote for concurrence? What muddled brains such a 
procedure would have indicated! 

It is patent, then, that the Northern Conferences, in 
voting on "the part of the Plan" submitted to them, 
did not take the ground (1) that their vote affected the 
validity of the Plan, or would have any other effect 
than (2) to allow of a distribution of the property and 
a peaceful separation. Every member of the Confer- 
ences opposed to separation who held to the first of 
these two opinions, and did not vote against the third 
resolution of the Plan, was guilty of treachery to his 
real opinions — a dishonesty that ought not to be 
charged on "the fathers" by writers of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

Y. I adduce the action of the Bishops of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church as sustaining my proposition. 
After the non-concurrence of the Conferences, these 
Bishops, having full knowledge of all the facts, on two 
occasions — July 2, 1845, and March 23, 1847 — by con- 
forming their action to the provisions of the Plan of 
Separation, using that name, acknowledged its validity. 
At their first meeting after the Louisville Convention, 
they passed the following resolutions: 

1. Resolved, That the Plan reported by the Select Committee of 
Nine, at the last General Conference, and adopted by that body, in 
regard to a distinct ecclesiastical connection, should such a course 
be found necessary by the Annual Conferences in the slave-holding 
States, is regarded by us as of binding obligation in the premises 
so far as our administration is concerned. 



118 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

2. Resolved, That in order to ascertain fairly the desire and pur- 
pose of those Societies bordering on the line of division in regard 
to their adherence to the Church, North, or South, due notice should 
be given of the time, place, and object of meeting for the above 
purpose, at which a chairman and secretary should be appointed, 
and the sense of all the members present be ascertained, and the 
same be forwarded to the Bishop who may preside at the ensuing 
Annual Conference, or forward to said presiding Bishop a written 
request to be recognized and have a preacher sent them, with the 
names of the majority appended thereto.* 

They, moreover, gave notice to the Conferences 
South, in the districts previously assigned to them re- 
spectively, that they "respectfully declined attending 
said Conferences." 

At the meeting in 1847 they considered several sub- 
jects connected with their "administration relative to 
border work under the Plan of Separation adopted by 
the last General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church," and then proceeded to "resolve" on the princi- 
ples by which they will shape their action as to "Sta- 
tions or Societies South or North of the line of separa- 
tion." Thus they fully recognize the Plan — act upon 
it — and their administration was approved by the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1848. 

One farther fact deserves notice in this connection. 
After the Louisville Conference of 1845, the second 
border Conference to act on the question of adherence 
was in Missouri. Here it was claimed that the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church would have a Conference at 
any rate; for if they could not secure a majority, they 
would organize with a minority, transact the regular 
business of the Missouri Conference, and draw the 
dividend from the Book Concern. The better to ac- 
complish their purposes, Bishop Morris was written to 
and invited to attend the Conference, with a desire 
that he would take charge of this Conference. To 
this invitation he gave the following noble response; 

Burlington, Iowa, September 8, 1845. 
Kev. Wilson S. McMurky — Dear Brother: Your letter of the 
1st instant is now before me. The resolutions to which you refer 

*ls it not wonderful that Dr. p]lliott, who was so industrious in hunting np 
documents, never found this? It is not in his Great Secession. I am indebted 
for it to a newspaper of the day, and to a Hisioiy of the Division, published by 
]>r. McFerrin in 1845. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 119 

did pass in the meeting of the Bishops at New York, in July, 
unanimously. We all believe the}- are in accordance with the Plan 
of Separation adopted by the General Conference. "Whether that 
Plan was wise or foolish, constitutional or unconstitutional, did 
not become us to say, it being our duty, as Bishops, to know what 
the General Conference ordered to be done in a certain contingency, 
which has actually transpired, and to carry it out in good faith. It 
is, perhaps, unfortunate that the resolutions were not immediately 
published, but it was not thought necessary by a majority at the 
time they passed. Still our administration will be conformed to 
them. Bishop Soule's notice was doubtless founded upon them. 

As I am the responsible man at the Indiana Conference, October 
8, it. will not be in my power to attend the Missouri Conference; 
nor do I think it important to do so. Were I there, I could not, 
with my views of propriety and responsibility, encourage subdi- 
vision. If a majority of the Missouri Conference resolve to come 
under the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, that would destroy 
the identity of the Missouri Conference as an integral part of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. As to having two Missouri Confer- 
ences, each claiming to be the true one, and demanding the divi- 
dends of the Book Concern, and claiming the Church-property, that is 
the very thing that the General Conference designed to prevent by 
adopting the amicable Plan of Separation. It is true that the mi- 
nority preachers have a right, according to the General Bule in the 
Plan of Separation, to be recognized still in the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church; but, in order to do that, they must go to some ad- 
joining Conference in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The 
border charges may also, by a majority of votes, decide which or- 
ganization they will adhere to, and if reported in regular order to 
the Conference from which they wish to be supplied, or to the 
Bishop presiding, they will be attended to on either side of the 
line of separation. But if any brethren suppose the Bishops will 
send preachers from the North to interior charges South, or to mi- 
norities of border charges, to produce disruption, or that they will 
encourage minority preachers on either side of the line to organize 
opposition lines, by establishing one Conference in the bounds of 
another, they are misled. That would be departing from the plain 
letter of the rule prescribed by the General Conference in the 
premises. Editors may teach such nullification, and answer for it, 
if they will; but the Bishops all understand their duty better than 
to indorse such principles. I acknowledge that, under the prac- 
tical operation of the Plan of Separation, some hard cases may 
arise; but the Bishops do not make, and have not the power to re- 
lieve, them. It is the fault of the rule, and not of the executive 
administration of it. In the meantime, there is much more bad 
feeling indulged in respecting the separation than there is necessity 
for. If the Plan of Separation had been carried out in good faith 
and Christian feeling on both sides, it would scarcely have been 
felt any more than the division of an Annual Conference. 

It need not destroy confidence or embarrass the work if the 



120 The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 

business be managed in the spirit of Christ. I trust the time is 
not very far distant when brethren, North and South, will cease 
their hostilities, and betake themselves to their prayers and other 
appropriate duties in earnest. Then, and not till then, may we 
expect the Lord to bless us as in former days. 

I am, dear brother, yours, respectfully and affectionate!}*', 

Thos. A. Morris. 

One thing puzzles me: How could the General Con- 
ference of 1848 approve the administration of the 
Bishops, which avowedly embraced conformity to the 
Plan, and yet say that its validity, and consequently 
the propriety of acting by it — which they did — de- 
pended on a three-fourths' vote of the Conferences? 

The testimony I have thus far brought to sustain 
my opinion has been — with slight exceptions — from 
members, Bishops, and Conferences of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. This ought to settle the question 
that Conference concurrence in the change of the Re- 
strictive Article was not a condition of legitimating 
the separation. But it is fair that the South should be 
heard on that point. 

I might here adduce the action of the Southern Con- 
ferences to sustain my view, had they not utterly ig- 
nored every reference to the vote on the Restrictive 
Article, as involving the sanction of the General Con- 
ference action on the entire Plan. That idea seems 
never to have entered into their conceptions. So we 
get no help here, except that of silence — and this con- 
cession to our opinion is weighty. But two of these 
Conferences mention the property question:* the Vir- 
ginia Conference, to instruct its Delegates to Louisville 
" not to allow the question of property to enter into the 
calculation whether or not we shall exist as a separate 
organization ; " and the Georgia Conference, to leave to 
its Delegates the exercise of their own discretion be- 
tween abandonment of the property and separation. 

VI. I bring now Southern authority to corroborate 
what has been so clearly established by Northern tes- 
timony — that the concurrence of the Annual Confer- 
ences was never intended to be an element in the 
legitimacy of the Plan of Separation. 

-See Redford's Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, for the 
documents. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 121 

As we have seen, Dr. Capers proposed a plan inau- 
gurating division in the General Conference itself; in- 
deed, perfecting it, so far as its own vote went, and 
sending the plan to the Annual Conferences to confirm 
its action. A three -fourths' majority would then have 
divided the Church absolutely, whether the Southern 
Conferences desired it or not. 

Dr. C. gives a history of the action on this proposi- 
tion, in a letter addressed to the South Carolina Con- 
ference, dated June 17, 1844, immediately after the ad- 
journment of the General Conference, and published 
in the Southern Christian Advocate, of June 21, which 
says: 

This paper [his proposed constitutional amendment] was referred 
to a committee, etc. [naming them]. 

They could not agree on the basis of the proposition committed 
to them, the Northern members of the committee deeming it im- 
practicable to get the requisite vote of three-fourths of the Annual 
Conferences for such a change of the Constitution of the Church 
as it contemplated. But a plan was set on foot to meet the case, 
by anticipating a declaration of all the Southern Delegates as to 
the absolute necessity of a change of jurisdiction; on which declara- 
tion a committee should recommend to the General Conference the 
adoption of a measure which would receive a general vote, and re- 
fer it to the Annual Conferences, in the South, to act on the whole 
matter; and for all the Annual Conferences to act on so much only 
as should respect a division of the Book Concern. The committee, 
therefore, reported on the 5th of June that they could not recom- 
mend the adoption of the paper referred to them, but had come to 
the conclusion that some other amicable arrangement might be 
made; and asked to be relieved. 

As soon as the morning session was over, in which the committee 
reported as above, a meeting of the Southern Delegations was called; 
and in the afternoon session of the same day the following solemn 
Declaration, with the signatures thereto, was read and put on record. 
[Here follows the "Declaration" of the Southern Delegates, that 
separation seemed inevitable.] 

The document was referred to a committee of nine; the same 
persons as former committee, except, etc. 

Dr. Capers again writes, in the Southern Christian 
Advocate, March 28, 1845, to answer the assertion of 
Dr. Elliott that his (Capers's) plan was not even con- 
sidered, was "set aside," because the committee would 
not entertain the idea of division in any sense. To 
show that they did entertain it, Dr. C. writes : 

It will be remembered that these resolutions [his plan] provided 
6 



122 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

if* 

for the separation of the Northern and Southern Conferences, as 
regarded the jurisdiction over them only; appointing; two General 
Conferences, but retaining a common interest in the Book Concern 
and Missions. This feature of the resolutions was at once and gen- 
erally objected to by the Northern members of the committee, who 
said that if a division took place it ought to be entire; and they 
seemed to be firmly settled in this opinion of the matter. Another 
prevailing objection to the resolutions, and which precluded alto- 
gether their being reported to the Conference, even in an amended 
form, was that, constituted as the Conference and committee were — ■ 
with a majority of Northern members in both — it was not seemly 
to originate and pass any measure for a division before it had been 
formally called for by the South. They would (and we thought 
reasonably) put the onus of the measure on the Southern Delegates, 
so as to make it manifest that we had required it to be done under 
our convictions of an adequate necessity for it, arising out of the 
previous action of the Conference in the cases of Brother Harding 
and the Bishop; and not to appear as if that action had been adopted 
to produce separation, or as if they were willing to grant it on any 
other ground than that of a necessity solemnly set forth by the 
South. I think it was Doctor (now Bishop) Hamline who proposed 
in the committee the manner of our report; and that I should call 
a meeting of the Southern Delegates to memorialize the Conference 
on the subject of division, and that such memorial being made and 
referred to a committee, a provisional Plan of Separation, or divis- 
ion, should follow. This was unanimously agreed to by the com- 
mittee, and the verbal report (on Dr. C.'s plan) was accordingly 
made. . . . 

Is it not remarkable that the first word and movement for the 
calling of the meeting of the Southern Delegates which produced 
the memorable Declaration should have been heard from a North- 
ern member (of this I am positive, and I think he was Dr. Ham- 
line) of the first Committee of Nine, and proceeded from that com- 
mittee through its chairman, by their general if not unanimous 
consent? And this, too, lest they might appear too ready to grant 
the South protection from an action which they had been con- 
strained to adopt by the condition of the Northern Churches. 
Yes, there were hearts of men — noble Christian hearts — in that 
committee; and would to God that such hearts in a world like ours 
could be kept aloof from the strife of tongues! 

Dr. Paine, chairman of the Committee of Nine, wrote 
to the South-western (Nashville) Christian Advocate, Oc- 
tober 25, 1844, as follows: 

Shortly after the degradation of Bishop Andrew by a vote of the 
General Conference, Dr. Capers moved a committee with a view of 
drawing up a plan by which the South could be relieved from the 
effects of legislation by the General Conference on the subject of 
slavery, without a division of the Church, and consequently with- 
out separating our interests in the Book Concern, the Missions, and 
the other great charities of the Church. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 123 

The committee was appointed, a large majority being from non- 
slave-holding States; and the result was that the Southern Delega- 
tion was called together and informed that as a necessary pre- 
liminary step the South must ask formally of the Conference 
for a division. Dr. Longstreet, Dr. Smith, and myself, were ap- 
pointed a commission to draw up a declaration. Dr. S. and myself 
(Dr. L. not being able to be present) consulted together and agreed 
that we did not want a division of the Church, but a separate Gen- 
eral Conference for the South, on the basis of our Articles of Ee- 
ligion, General Kules, and the Constitutional Limitations and Re- 
strictions, as at present existing in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
And therefore, with much care, and after mature deliberation, we 
drew up and presented to a meeting of the Southern Delegates a 
declaration with which we believed the South would be satisfied.* 

This proposition was set aside, because it was understood that 
the committee would not agree to report any such plan, and that 
the South must explicitly ask for a division of the Church; and, 
therefore, the "Declaration," which has so often appeared in print, 
was substituted. "We were told this was what we could get by ask- 
ing for it, but that nothing less could be obtained. Another and 
final effort was made by myself, in the last Committee of Nine, to 
prevent a total division, and that, too, failed. And then nothing 
remained to us but unconditional submission to the lawless acts of 
the majority, or to accept such terms as they would dictate. We 
preferred the latter, and the Church is now called upon to accept 
or reject these terms. 

* This Declaration, which showed what the South wanted, and what the North 
would not grant, is as follows: 

" The Delegates of the Southern and South-western Conferences having been 
appealed to, by the committee appointed by the General Conference on the sub- 
ject of the proposed division of the Church, 'for their views in the premises, con- 
cur in the following declaration of sentiment: 

" 1. That they have always deprecated division of any kind, and still regard 
it as a dernier ressort, which nothing short of imperative and uncontrollable 
necessity could reconcile them even for a moment to entertain. 

" 2. Such necessity, they have been constrained to feel, is now imposed upon 
them by the extrajudicial action of a majority of the General Conference in 
the case of Bishop Andrew, taken as it has been in defiance of our united re- 
monstrance, made in view of averting this precise calamity, as well as our 
repeated assurances, given the Conference, that such action would render it in- 
evitable. 

"3. Thus compelled, against our will, to entertain the idea of division, we 
cannot even now consent to a division of the Church, but only a division of our 
great field of ministerial labor, by the organization of two General Conferences, 
each retaining the patronymic name, Methodist Episcopal Church, the Arti- 
cles of Religion, General Rules, and Restrictive Articles. Such a division of 
the work would not necessarily involve either schism or secession, to both of 
which we are irreconcilably opposed. 

" 4. This kind of division in the General Conference we regard as necessary, 
and even desirable, unless the future agitation of the subject of slavery in the 
General Conference can be wholly interdicted by express statute, excluding it 
from the councils of the Church,' as belonging alone to the civil government. 

" 5. It is only under stress of these circumstances that we concur in soliciting 
the committee" to report a plan for the amicable division, not of the Church, but 
only of our field of ministerial labor, including an equitable partition of the 
property and funds heretofore held in common by all the Annual Confer- 
ences."" 



124 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

These letters furnish the following facts, pertinent 
to my argument: The Northern members of the com- 
mittee on Dr. Capers's plan deemed it impossible to 
get a three-fourths' majority in the Annual Confer- 
ences for such a radical change of Constitution as he 
proposed — they urging that if division came, it must 
be entire, and not partial — that it was not seemly that 
a committee largely composed of Northern members 
should propose to a Conference having a Northern 
majority a plan of division before the South had de- 
clared it essential — that to originate and pass a measure 
of division before formally called for by the South 
might look as if their action on the Finley Resolution 
had been taken to procure that result, under the pre- 
tense only that they had been constrained to adopt it 
by the condition of the Northern Churches — and that 
the onus must fall on the Southern Delegates of mak- 
ing its necessity manifest. But a Northern Delegate 
(Dr. Hamlin e, Dr. C. thinks) proposed a plan to reach 
the case. The Southern Delegates were to declare their 
belief in the necessity of a change of jurisdiction, where- 
upon a committee on the declaration would recommend 
to the Conference a measure that w r ould receive a gen- 
eral vote, and refer it to the Annual Conferences and 
membership of the South to act on the whole matter, and 
to all the Annual Conferences to act on so much only as 
should respect a division of the Book Concern. The 
committee reported that they could not adopt Dr. C.'s 
paper, but thought some other amicable arrangement 
might be made. After morning adjournment, the 
Southern Delegates were called together, and told 
that, as a necessary preliminary to farther action, the 
South must ask formally for a division. A committee 
was appointed to draw up a declaration. Drs. Paine 
and Smith agreed that they did not want a division of 
the Church, but only a separate General Conference 
for the South, altogether on the basis of the present 
Discipline in other respects. They drew up a paper to 
this effect, strongly opposing total division. This 
proposition was set aside by the Southern Delegates, 
because it was understood that the Committee of Nine 
would not agree to report any such plan, and that the 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 125 

South must explicitly ask for a division of the Church, 
and therefore the Declaration offered was substituted. 
They were told this separation was what the South 
could get by asking for it, but that nothing less could 
be obtained. Another and final effort was made by 
Dr. P., in the Committee of Nine, to prevent a total di- 
vision — and that, too, failed.* 

It may be interesting now to ascertain the genesis 
of this idea, that it would be proper for the Northern 
Conferences to "non-concur" on this third resolution. 
There was little doubt, at first, that the Conferences, 
however opposed their members might be to division 
per se, would vote for it, as it did not affect that ques- 
tion, but only property division. But "bad blood" 
came in, and the first hint we find that this resolution 
might not carry is found in an editorial in Zion's Herald, 
in July, 1844, which says: 

We regret the excitement at the South, for the effect it is having 
in New England, in reference to the resolution that is to come before 
us on a division of the Church-property. It is understood, of course, 
that the South have no legal claim to the property. . . . It is 
a questionable point whether it will he morally proper for the North 
to sanction, hy liheral largesses, a schism which, however desirable, 
if properly conducted, is evidently to be ... a battery of un- 
ceasing hostility and abuse against ourselves. "We regret to state 
that these circumstances render the fate of the resolution (for di- 
viding the property) exceedingly doubtful in New England. Our 
best hope for it is that it may be deferred a year, to ascertain the 
attitude of the South, but even this is doubtful. New England 
can defeat the measure [not of separation, surely, for we have al- 

* This narrative explains a few facts heretofore ohscure : 1. Why the Declara- 
tion was referred to almost the identical committee which had reported that 
they could hot harmonize on Dr. C.'s plan. 2. What Dr. H. meant by refusing 
(as I allow) to farther consider a plan for the "constitutional division of the 
Church," but would consider a plan for the "constitutional division of the 
property;" because, as his speeches show, he believed that the "Constitu- 
tion" required a plan with this object, to be sent round to the Conferences, 
while it did not require a plan for division to be so submitted — it already hav- 
ing all power, outside the Restrictive Articles — hence the former process 
would be conformable to the Constitution, the latter " unconstitutional " — not 
conforming to the letter of the Constitution — and its enactment be, conse- 
quently, an immediate division of the Church. 3. Why Mr. Crowder, who was 
on the first committee, moved to strike the word "constitutional" from Dr. 
McFerrin's resolution instructing the second committee to devise a " consti- 
tutional division of the Church," since Mr. C. knew, and the other did 
not, perhaps, that the committee had already settled in mind what could and 
what could not be done " constitutionally," and had a plan in view conforming 
to Dr. H.'s opinions on this subject. It is here confirmed — 4. That the words 
"constitutional " and unconstitutional were used, the one in the sense " re- 
quired by the Constitution "—the other, " not required by the Constitution — not 
embraced in its provisos! " 



126 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

ready quoted a contrary opinion from the same paper — "but of 
property division], and she is heginning to feel that self-respect, as 
well as moral propriety, will compel her to do it. 

Dr. Capers, commenting on this, in the Southern 
Christian Advocate, July 26, says : 

One object that Dr. Bond and Mr. Stevens have in their editorial 
essays against the pacifieating measure of the General Conference 
is to gain the weight of the pecuniary consideration of the Book 
Concern to influence the action of the Southern Conferences. I ap- 
prehend the importance that Mr. S. attaches to it (our portion of 
the Book Concern) is full proof of his ignorance of our situation; 
for surely no one of any conscience could talk about money as a 
matter to govern our conduct, if he knew what is the stress of the 
necessity under which we must act. If we even knew that they 
had both the will and the ability to defraud us (which is impossi- 
ble), still it could not in the least degree aifect our conduct. Men 
who struggle for existence cannot be diverted from the last hold 
on life to preserve their money. ... I doubt if even Dr. Bond 
would join Mr. S. in his threat; and as to our Northern brethren 
generally, I would not for my right hand harbor such a thought 
of them. 

Nor do I find any thing from Dr. Bond on this sub- 
ject until all the Conferences had taken action, when 
(April 16, 1845), announcing the result, he said: 

On the other arrangements, contained in the report of the com- 
mittee adopted by the General Conference, the Annual Confer- 
ences were not called upon to act; but, as they are necessarily 
dependent on the amendment of the Discipline which has been 
rejected, they fall with it. 

If this mean any thing more than that the "other 
arrangements" providing, by commissioners, etc., for 
the division of the property, in case the Conferences 
concurred in the third resolution, "was dependent on 
this amendment" — which is very true — then Dr. Bond 
here contradicts what he had said at an earli-er day, as 
reported by Dr. Elliott, from the Advocate and Journal, 
of June 26', 1844. Dr. E. writes: 

Dr. B. gave an able article, headed, "The true grounds upon 
which the Southern portion of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
must rest, if the contemplated separation from their present con- 
nection be effected." He stated that the question of separation or 
continued union is to be settled by the South, as the consent to and 
arrangements for the amicable withdrawal of the South were at the 
earnest request of the Delegates of the Southern Annual Confer- 
ences. 



The Disruption of tiie M. E. Church. 127 

This from Dr. B , written the month the General 
Conference adjourned, is a more reliable construction 
of its act than that claimed for what he wrote a year 
later. What I have marked with italics fully corrob- 
orates the proposition I have argued, and supports 
fully the opinions quoted from Drs. Durbin, Bangs, 
Peck, and Finley. 

Besides, Dr. B., in the article first quoted from, at- 
tributes the failure to concur to the bitterness engen- 
dered by the controversies between the sections for 
the past year, and to the use the South made of the 
permission to depart by departing, and not to a better 
reason — had it been true — that the Conferences op- 
posed to division had vetoed the entire action of the 
General Conference. 

I have thus shown the origin of that idea which, 
ever since the General Conference of 1848, has been set 
forth prominently, and urged strenuously, because it 
is really the only possible vindication of repudiation — 
namely: "that the Plan was not fairly valid without 
the consent of three-fourths of the members of the 
Annual Conferences." That the opinion has no firm 
foundation in fact I think now fullj" proved, and I 
offer these facts to the unprejudiced judgment of the 
Christian world, in the full confidence that it will ac- 
quit Southern Methodism of being either a secession 
or a schism. So far from its being either, the method 
of procedure for effecting a separation was devised and 
proposed by the leading "constitutional lawyer" of 
the Northern party; the Southern Delegates conformed 
to his advice, his Plan was proposed by a committee 
of which he was a member, was advocated by himself 
and every other member of the committee, and was 
enacted by a large majority of the Northern votes — 
all these facts establishing the hypothesis that separa- 
tion was looked upon as inevitable on the passage of 
the Finley Eesolution, and that, under all the circum- 
stances, this result was intended. 



128 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 



CHAPTER IX. 

ACTION OF THE SOUTH ON THE PLAN OF SEPARATION. 

A LMOST the last act of the General Conference of 
i\ 1844 was the receiving of the "Keply to the Pro- 
test" — the statement of facts, as the majority under- 
stood them — in relation to its action on the Finley 
Resolution. I do not propose to call in question that 
statement. Bishop Andrew's case and slavery have 
passed out of the controversy between the two 
Churches, and need only be mentioned to get down 
to the real matter at issue — the action that followed 
the "Declaration." 

We are told that after that action, until this paper 
was read, the excitement had measurably subsided. 
But its reading seems to have renewed it. Mr. Crowd er 
(Virginia Conference) said that, before that Reply was 
read, he "had hoped they might yet avoid division. 
The passage of that Report would render it inevitable. 
They had no choice left." He repeated, with much 
warmth and earnestness, his conviction as to the disas- 
trous consequences to be produced by the publication 
of that paper. 

Mr. Early had sad and fearful forebodings of the 
consequences if the paper was adopted. Already the 
South was in a flame, in consequence of past action, 
and the Reply was calculated to increase it. He had 
letters detailing the excitement prevailing. 

This excited state of feeling had been before brought 
to the attention of the Conference. The Finley Reso- 
lution and matters connected therewith had been dis- 
cussed nearly three weeks. Though that was not the 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 129 

day of telegraphs and numerous railroads, yet the 
daily and weekly papers had reached all sections, 
and, in return, the mails had conveyed to the Dele- 
gates many expressions of popular opinion. The 
Northern Delegates had doubtless been subjected by 
their constituency, near at hand, to great "outside 
pressure." The more distant South had begun to feel 
the throes of dissolution. We have already quoted 
what Drs. Capers, Winans, and Paine said respecting 
the news from the South. As early as May 29 Mr. 
Dunwody, of South Carolina, had a letter informing 
him that the greatest alarm prevailed now in the South, 
and he said he did not know but that another Confer- 
ence would be called there to take measures to secede 
altogether. The fear was, as Mr. Filmore recollected 
in 1848, "that the people would drive away the preach- 
ers." As I have already said, we have had terrible 
proof of the jealousy with which the South met any 
— though but anticipated — interference with its insti- 
tutions; and the people would have risen en masse 
against Methodism, in every form, if it were believed 
to be under the domination of even anti-slavery, much 
less abolition, sentiment; and they would have be- 
lieved this of it unless the action of this Conference 
were repudiated by the Southern Delegates. The 
Northern members had been made aware of this fact, 
and had acted on the information by passing a Plan 
allowing peaceable separation, rather than have gen- 
eral dissolution. 

By the time the Conference closed, it had become a 
serious question with the Southern Delegates whether 
their people could be held together long enough for 
calm consultation and united action. Methodism had 
many enemies, who would be quick to promote disrup- 
tion and schism; and any seeming hesitancy of these 
Delegates to show fealty to their own section, amid its 
present excitements, would be the signal for breaking 
up many Churches and all their missions among the 
slaves. It was hoped that the Plan of Separation 
would vindicate not only that fealty, but the sense of 
justice in ecumenical Methodism, and thus allay ex- 
citement. Thus it became "a peace measure." The 
6* 



130 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

question with the Delegates now was how they might 
best stay all irregular and schismatic proceedings, and 
make the Plan best subserve the purpose of conserv- 
ing the integrity of Southern Methodism. They fell 
upon the wisest scheme by prevising for the future and 
fixing a time — nearly a year after — to which all de- 
cisive action should be postponed, to give space for re- 
flection, consultation, and united action, whether it 
might be to abide under, or depart from, the jurisdic- 
tion of the common General Conference. They might 
thus, wisely and in the interests of Christianity, direct, 
if they could not suppress, the excitement. 

It may be granted that had there been no Plan of 
Separation devised, and had the Methodist Episcopal 
Church persisted in maintaining her jurisdiction in the 
South, there might have been found in many "Socie- 
ties" a nucleus of members remaining true to her — 
as also here and there some preachers. But this would 
have involved schism and the general dissolution of 
tne Church. There were Northern men, and some 
who sympathized with the North on that question, 
which proved the occasion of this revolution. But the 
great body of Methodists were not of this sort — es- 
pecially the leading men in the Church. The Avealth 
and' intelligence of her membership would have been 
arrayed against any preachers or people who attempted 
to maintain Church-fellowship with Northern Method- 
ists on their principles. The war would have been 
transferred from the border to nine out of ten of all 
the Societies of Southern Methodism; and if these 
prominent Methodists could not have carried their So- 
cieties, one by one, out of the Northern organization, 
they would, by tens of thousands, have withdrawn 
from Episcopal Methodism. The united front of the 
Delegates and their wise suggestions preserved the 
unity of the Church, in that it kept the influential 
classes from disrupting or abandoning it. Had they 
gone, a remnant might have remained in many Socie- 
ties, out of which it would have been as difficult to 
reestablish the pristine power of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the South as it has proved to be in 
later years to regain to its fold the white people of this 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 131 

section. But for the wise forecast of these Delegates, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church* in the South, after 
1844, might have been but a prophecy of itself as now 
existing — plus the "meeting-houses" and minus the 
negroes. 

The Delegates met on June 11, in New York, and 
conferred calmly and prayerfully respecting the sit- 
uation. Their deliberations resulted in appointing a 
time and place when and at which the entire Southern 
Church might speak and act in concert; and thus they 
forestalled all excuse for immediate and divided action 
by Societies, neighborhoods, or circuits. They devised 
a plan by which to get at the sentiment and purpose 
of the membership, so that whatever was done it 
should be the act of the Church at large. They pro- 
vided against precipitate action in the more excitable 
Conferences by suggesting that nothing be done till 
all the Conferences they represented could meet in a 
General Convention; and "submitted" to their "con- 
sideration" that May 1, 1845, would be a suitable time, 
and Louisville, Ky., a fit place; for such a Convention ; 
and that their Delegates — chosen in a ratio (to the 
preachers) suggested, to procure uniformity — be in- 
structed "on the points on which action is contem- 
plated — the instructions conforming, as far as possible, 
to the opinions and wishes of the members of the 
Church." What could have been done more consider- 
ately for the sake of peace? It was impossible that 
they could vindicate the action of the General Confer- 
ence after their speeches, in resisting that action, had 
gone to their people. They could not so stultify them- 
selves, and no sane man in the North could have ex- 
pected it of them. JSTo more could they be silent when 
they returned home; and had each returned home with 
his own plan for the future, and with divided counsels, 
the Church might have been torn asunder, Conference 
by Conference. Their constituents looked to them for 
advice, and rightly they proffered it — such advice, too, 

-The Committee on the State of the Church, in the General Conference of 
18 48, tell us that two thousand seven hundred and thirty-rive members within 
the bounds of the Southern organization had petitioned that body not to set 
them adrift, but to send them the gospel ; and they felt under solemn obliga- 
tion to do it. 



132 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

as compacted rather than broke up Southern Method- 
ism into fragments. I venture to say that no body of ju- 
dicious men on earth, under like circumstances, would 
have done otherwise. It was what the New England 
Delegates intended to do early in the Conference, when 
they began to organize to keep their Churches to- 
gether, and their incipient steps toward "secession" 
were arrested by success. 

They also issued a brief "Address to the Ministers 
and Members" of their Conferences. They said to 
them what they had said over and again in the Con- 
ference, and what the official organs of that body had 
already reported to every corner of the land as fulling 
from their lips — what, indeed, some of the Northern 
Delegates had uttered without any qualification — 
that "the time is coming when separation must take 
place." * They state fairly and truthfully, as for days 
past, that the opinions and purposes of the Church in 
the North on the subject of slavery are in direct con- 
flict with those of the South, " destroying the harmony 
of the Church," and will finally prove extremely hurt- 
ful, if not ruinous, to the South — a statement fully 
vindicated when even the "conservative" Baltimore 
Conference felt forced, in 1860, to withdraw from the 
jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church. They 
briefly stated the action of the Conference in agreeing 
"to apian of final and pacific separation, by which the 
Southern Conferences are to have a distinct and inde- 
pendent organization of their own, in no way subject 
to Northern jurisdiction." They said: "It affords us 
pleasure to state that there were those found among 
the majority who met this proposition with every man- 
ifestation of justice and liberality; and should a simi- 
lar spirit be exhibited by the Annual Conferences in 
the North when an opportunity to manifest, by a vote on 
the Eestrictive Article, justice and lib.erality is submit- 
ted to them, as provided for in the Plan itself, there 
will remain no legal impediment to its peaceful consum- 
mation." As "it might be expected of them" (and it 
was) to express their views fully, they say that they 

*See Mr. Porter's remarks, before quoted, when the Plan was under dis- 
cussion. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 133 

regard separation, at no distant day, inevitable — which 
is certainly what the Conference expected, when it ar- 
ranged all the details for dividing the Book Concern 
property within a year or two, if the Conferences 
changed the Restrictive Article. They besought a 
careful examination of the entire question as to methods 
and time, deprecated all excitement, and advised that 
the question be approached and disposed of with can- 
dor and forbearance. The paper, in short, is but a fair 
report to their constituents of sentiments and opinions 
that they had, for many days, been expressing to their 
opponents. 

And their constituents not only sympathized fully 
with them, but anticipated them, many of them speak- 
ing out before they knew all that the Conference did, 
and before this Address could have reached them. A 
casual meeting in Alabama — a meeting of citizens for 
some local political object, as early as June 8, knowing 
only of the discussions on the Finley Eesolution — may 
be cited, as giving a fair exhibition of the public temper 
toward a submissive Southern Methodism. They say 
that they have observed .the proceedings of the Con- 
ference "with intense interest and painful anxiety," 
and reprobate them with some severity, and invoke the 
clergy of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South, 
in case that Resolution is passed, "to take immediate 
measures for secession," assuring them "of the warm 
sympathy and unalterable support of the whole South- 
ern States of every sect and denomination." Hundreds 
of thousands of Southerners — not Methodists — were 
ready to deliver like utterances, if encouraged to speak 
on this subject. 

On the same day, on Chesterfield Circuit, Virginia, 
the Church began to deliver her opinion, and from 
that time scarce a day passed for months but some as- 
sembly swelled the popular voice in condemnation of 
the action of the Conference, and in commendation of 
the course of the Southern Delegates — some before the 
Conference adjourned, many before the Address of the 
Delegates could have reached them. In the Southern 
Christian Advocate, alone, I find reported thirty meet- 
ings, held within one month of the adjournment of the 



1B4 The Disruption- or the M. E. Church. 

Conference — meetings : Churches, or circuits, or 
Quarterly Conferences — in towns, in cities, in country 
places, from Norfolk : New Orleans — all speaking in 
one voice. And these, perhaps, were but a tithe of the 
entire number held.* 

A from September 11. 1S4±. till March 1. 1845, the 
Conferences were Tittering their voices. The 
voices were many, but the speech was one. They dep- 
recated separation, but the necessity was on them, and 
separation must come, unless the North could re 
the pressure upon them. In one or two install 
measures of relief were sagg i : but they can. 
naught. Those who will take the trouble to read the 
utterances of these inferences ~f will find tha: 

ry of the world toes >ffer a parallel to the 

unanimity of sentiment, thought, and purpose which 
they exhibited on a subject of so momentous conse- 
quence. Their course was taken reluctantly, sadly, 
but firmly, for the preservation of Southern Method- 
ism and for the glory of God. 

On May 1. 1S45. a Convention of Delegates from 
Conferences in the slave-holding States met in Louis- 
ville. Ky. I propose only to _ ~ i -. suits — therefore, I 
shall not follow them up through the twenty day- : 
the session. A Committee on Organization was ap- 
pointed to canvass the acts of the several Annual Con- 

M>nsidei th propriety and n 
- hern organization, according to the -Plan of - 
aration.*' and to report the best method of - 
the objects contemplated in the appoint men: 

ention: and were instructed, also, to inquire if 
any thing had taken place during the year to rend 

ssible to maintain the unity of Methodism under the 
same General Conference jurisdiction without the ruin 

uthern Methodism. 

:er a free interchange of views from day 

on the 15th of May this committee reported at length. 

Their report much ground, but they reached 

.lusions: That ti al Conference of lS4r4 

gave full, and express, and ex authority to -the 



The Disruption of the Iff. E. Church. 135 

Annual Conferences In the slave-holding States" to 
judge of the propriety, and decide upon the n 
of organizing "a separate ecclesiastical Connection in 
the South:'" that sixteen * such Conferences were here 
represented: that it is in evidence that the ministry 
and membership of the South, nearly five hundred 
thousand, in the proportion of about ninety-five in 
the hundred, deem a division of jurisdiction indispen- 
sable — an urgent necessity: that unless this is effected. 
about a million of slaves, now hearing the gospel from 
our ministers, will be withdrawn from their care; that 
a mere division of jurisdiction cannot affect the moral 
unity of the great American Methodist family — the 
Methodist Episcopal Church — as this expressly author 
division only proposes to invest the general jurisdiction 
in two great organs of Church-action and control, in- 
stead of in one. as at present: that not only will the 
moral oneness and integrity of the great Methodist 
bod}* not be affected by it. bnt peace and unity will be 
restored to the Church; and that while thus taking 
their position upon the ground assigned them by the 
General Conference of 1844, as a distinct ecclesiastical 
Connection, the Southern Conferences are ready and 
most willing to treat with the Northern division of the 
Church at any time, in view of adjusting the difficulties 
of this controversy upon terms and principles that may 
be satisfactory to both : and then these Delegates did 
'•solemnly declare the jurisdiction hitherto exer- 
over the Annual Conferences represented in the Con- 
vention by the General Conference of the Meth 
Episcopal Church entirely dissolved; and that said An- 
nual Conferences are hereby constituted a separate ec- 
clesiastical Connection under the Provisional Plan of 
Separation adopted by the General Conference of 1S44: 
and. based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, comprehending the doctrines and entire 
moral, ecclesiastical, and economical rules and regula- 
tions of said Discipline, except only in so far as verbal 
alterations may be necessary to a distinct organization, 



*The Texas Conference elected Delegates to this Convention before it was 
divided, which was done at the same session — hence. Delegates from fifteen 

represented sixteen Conferences. 



136 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

which is to be known by the style and title of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South." 

The only legislation was to provide for a session of 
the General Conference next year, and to fix the ratio 
of representation.* 

Thus was effected the division of ecumenical Meth- 
odism, and the organization of its Southern division — 
the Plan of Separation of 1844 being strictly observed 
in every particular. 

Bishop Andrew "adhered," and Bishop Soule an- 
nounced his purpose to adhere, to this new organiza- 
tion. Some of these Conferences had been included in 
the plan of visitation of the other Bishops, and they 
met, July 3, 1845, to consider whether they should go 
South to preside. "After much solemn and prayerful 
consideration, they resolved that, acting under the au- 
thority of the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and amenable to it, they would not 
consider themselves justifiable in presiding in said 
Conferences," and gave notice to them to that effect; 
so they recognized the action of the Convention, and 
withdrew their Superintendency from the Conferences 
to which they had been designated. 

In May, 1846, the first General Conference of South- 
ern Methodism met in Petersburg, Ya. It made no 
considerable changes beyond what were necessary for 

-•And thus the Convention realized the expectations of Dr. Elliott, when the 
action of the General Conference was fresh in memory, and hefore he conceived 
that he would acquire fame by showing how the Methodist Episcopal Church 
could contradict, without stultifying, itself. What I quote is found in the West- 
ern Christian Advocate, of August 16, 1844: " Calculating, then, from present ap- 
pearances, we see no other prospect than that the South will form an inde- 
pendent Methodist Episcopal Church. . . . We may be wrong in our view; 
but we confess we can see no injury that will accrue to religion from this new 
organization, or rather modification or adjustment of the old one. At an early 
age, Christianity was resolved into many distinct connectional organizations, 
called Churches— as the Churches of Antioeh, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome. 
. . . Even Methodism has given examples of similar character. There is 
the British Conference, the Irish Conference, the Canadian Conference — all act- 
ing independently— all cooperating— all in friendly relations. Our Church is 
actually become unwieldy, in consequence of its great size and the vast ex- 
tent of territory over which it is spread, with people entertaining different 
views on topics calculated to create different action. How can we see any more 
evil that can arise from dividing the Church into two great independent eccle- 
siastical confederations than (comparing small with great) in dividing classes, 
circuits, stations, districts, Conferences, etc. . . . Indeed, we are persuaded 
that distinct organizations must exist, in the nature of things, in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States; and that necessity jmd Scripture princi- 
ples will inevitably enforce them. We believe that the unity, purity, power, and 
extending influence of Methodism may be promoted by these means." Alas! 
" how had the mighty fallen" before 1848! 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 137 

organizing the several departments of Church-work. 
Its most important utterance was the interpretation 
fixed by the Conference of the provisions of the Plan 
with respect to the "border;" and what that was, and. 
whether it was right or wrong, it does not belong to 
my argument to consider. 

~Nor need I inquire whether the Bishops of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church were right or wrong in their 
diverse interpretation of the same provisions, when 
they came together, March 3, 1847, to consider "sev- 
eral subjects connected with our [their] administration 
relative to border-work, under the Plan of Separation 
adopted by the last General Conference of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church." 

Though the variant usage on both sides, under these 
diverse interpretations of the Plan, became the prolific 
source of contention and a ground of its repudiation, 
yet, as I design treating the subject in hand, it is not 
necessary here to justify either interpretation, as my 
readers will see when I come to treat of the legal as- 
pects of the Plan of Separation. 

I close this chapter at the point where the two inde- 
pendent and coordinate Methodist Episcopal Churches 
are found coexistent, organized and at work in every 
respect, and to the same great end of " spreading script- 
ural holiness over these lands," only differing in that 
they were no longer under the jurisdiction of one ecu- 
menical General Conference, but each under the head- 
ship of its own high Church-court of this name. O why 
could they not have been at peace? Why did preju- 
dice, and passion, and the personal bickerings and an- 
imosities of leaders, and editors, and other writers, 
arouse bitterness and hostility between these kindred 
branches of the great Methodist family — distinct in 
jurisdiction, but one in purpose? 

Note. — Much has been written of the animus of the resolutions 
passed in the primary and official meetings of the Church in the 
South held in the autumn of 1844. Dr. Elliott describes them as 
of "the most intemperate character" — as differing "in temper very- 
little from the language and spirit of the proceedings which char- 
acterize the political party proceedings of the day." It is true 
that some hard things were said; hut the candid reader, who has 



138 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

followed my narrative thus far, must acknowledge that it needed 
very plain, if not very strong, language to "characterize" this en- 
tire transaction. Dr. E. gives what he calls "ample selections" 
from them. In every case, however, he omits the arguments on 
which they are based, wherein is found the vindication of the opin- 
ions that prevailed in the South respecting the action of the Gen- 
eral Conference. Among others he gives resolutions passed by the 
Church in Milledgeville, Ga., June 22, 1844, where the writer, then 
in his early ministry, was stationed; hut he omits the "long and 
elaborate argument" which precedes the resolutions. The meet- 
ing, as the writer recollects, was instigated by the leading members 
of the Church, and he, with a committee of gentlemen — whose 
names, if mentioned here, would be recognized as those of promi- 
nent citizens of the State — was appointed to draft an expression 
of opinion suitable to the occasion. The following, from 'his pen, 
was subsequently offered and unanimously adopted. The resolu- 
tions doubtless contain some strong words; but I reproduce them 
here, willing that the reader shall judge of the reasons the South 
could then give to justify "its temper and language;" and, also, as 
a fair sample of the prevalent arguments in Southern Methodist 
circles: 

Whereas, As members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we feel ourselves 
sorely aggrieved by the action of the late General Conference of said Church 
in virtually requiring Bishop Andrew to desist from the exercise of his epis- 
copal functions so long as he is a slave-holder, we deem it our duty to express 
publicly our unqualified condemnation of the unconstitutional, impolitic, dis- 
ingenuous, and tyrannical proceedings of the said Conference, and our hearty 
approval of the patient and firm adhesion by the Southern Delegates to the 
interests of Southern Methodism in this trying juncture. 

We hold that the action of the General Conference in the premises is uncon- 
stitutional. The Discipline of the Church — which is its Constitution — contains 
no law that excludes or ejects a slave-holder from the Episcopacy. On the 
contrary, it provides that a preacher shall, for holding slaves, forfeit his min- 
isterial character only under certain well-defined circumstances, thereby inferential ly 
securing all ecclesiastical rights to slave-holding ministers in whom these 
conditions do not meet. It was not pretended that Bishop Andrew was de- 
barred the benefit of such constitutional allowance, or that he could be ejected 
from office by the operation of any rule of Discipline. He is, therefore, con- 
stitutionally a Bishop of the Metho'dist Episcopal Church, and any procedure 
which declares him incompetent to the exercise of his episcopal functions in 
any portion of that Church, for holding slaves, is grossly violative of its Con- 
stitution. Such is the action of the General Conference which seeks to deprive 
him either of his civil privileges as a citizen of a slave-holding State, or else 
of his ecclesiastical privileges of a Bishop — privileges which, so far from be- 
ing incompatible according to the Discipline, are secured to him by its pro- 
visions. Its interference," therefore, with either his civil or his ministerial 
rights, on the ground that he is a slave-holder, is without law and against law, 
and, consequently, unconstitutional. 

It, moreover, violates the Constitution, because, without depriving him of 
office by direct action, its effect is to bar him from, the exercise of that office 
in several Conferences,, and thereby encroaches upon that constitutional pro- 
vision which secures to the Church a " General Superintendency." 

It is unconstitutional, because it demands that he pretermit the discharge of 
the official duties enjoined by the Discipline, for a reason which it does not 
make sufficient to relieve him from his episcopal responsibility, and thereby 
warrants a neglect of duty, which the Constitution of the Church condemns, 
and for which "he could be arraigned and expelled from office. 

It is unconstitutional, because it virtually deposes him from office without 
any allegation of prior unfaithfulness as an officer or as a Christian, or tho 
pretense of present moral, mental, or physical incompetency to discharge the 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 139 

duties of his office; and as without impeachment, so, consequently, -without 
proper trial, is he deposed— whereas the Discipline secures to every minister 
trial according to specific provision before he can be disfranchised of any 
ecclesiastical immunities. 

We pronounce the action of the Conference impolitic, and we are ready to 
maintain the allegation. The interests of the Church in the slave-holding 
States require that" all religious Communions leave the subject of slavery to 
the voluntary action of the civil authority; and we would deem it wholly in- 
expedient for any Southern Church, or the representatives of such Church, to 
deprive of his ecclesiastical privileges a slave-holder, merely because he is 
one. This the General Conference has done virtually in the case of Bishop 
Andrew. Though this is not an act of the Southern Church, yet, as an act of 
our General Conference, it becomes ours, and we are responsible to the South- 
ern people for this outrage upon their opinions and feelings, unless we sol- 
emnly disavow all participation in such decision. We need hardly say how 
odious our Church would become, and how fatal it would be to our peaceful 
and prosperous existence, were we to yield an unresisting acquiescence in an 
act based upon the principle that such is the uncompromising hostility of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church to slavery that a pure-minded", self-sacrificing, 
and useful Bishop must cease to discharge his episcopal duties as soon as in 
any way he becomes " connected with slavery." Let us sanction this act, and 
thus make it our own, and we bring upon our Church in the slave-holding 
States a storm of indignation which would soon sweep it from the land. This 
we cannot, we will not, do. Sooner than do it we would willingly see our con- 
nectional union broken into a thousand fragments. 

We deem, therefore, the action of the Conference impolitic, because it .will 
array against the Church all the prejudice and hostility which Southerners feel 
toward those who illegitimately interfere with the subject of slavery. 

It is impolitic, because it leads the community to infer that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church will eventually consider itself constrained to legislate upon 
a civil institution so far as to deprive the slave-holding members either of 
their civil rights or of their Church-membership — an anticipated issue that 
at once places our Church in the South in imminent jeopardy. 

It is impolitic, because calculated to excite the animosity of slave-holders 
against our Church, and to prompt them to exclude our preachers from that 
unrestricted access to the slaves by which alone their spiritual interests can 
be advanced. 

It is impolitic, because, for the purpose of retaining in Church-communion 
discontented fanatics and disorganizing radicals, it does violence to the feelings 
of a respectable portion of the ministry in the non-slave-holding States, gives 
dissatisfaction to a large number of the better-informed and more judicious 
of our Northern brethren, and drives the Church to a position where a division, 
by either peaceable or schismatic measures, is inevitable; bringing with it all 
those disastrous civil and religious consequences which disunion among 
brethren and alienation of feeling in a large and respectable Christian Com- 
munion will undoubtedly produce. 

The action of the Conference in this case was disingenvovs. Without deposing 
Bishop Andrew by an overt act, it trammels him in the discharge of his official 
duties. By declaring him unacceptable to a majority of the Conferences, it 
deprives him virtually of all episcopal authority in those Conferences, yet 
leaves him liable to censure for neglect of duty on the one hand, or of contumacy 
on the other, as he may not, or may, undertake to discharge the duties the 
Discipline enjoins. It leaves him a "Bishop, and yet it prohibits the exercise 
of his episcopal functions. Though coming under the guise of a mere ex- 
pression of opinion, it is in fact a suspension from office — as the Discipline 
defines that office. This anomalous procedure can be understood only by 
supposing that the Conference ungenerously sought to transfer the responsi- 
bility of all the unhappy consequences of'its iniquitous act from itself to 
Bishop Andrew. It requires that he indorse, by a voluntary relinquishment 
of his official station, its unwarrantable assumptions that a slave-holder is not 
fit for a Bishop, that the Church cannot constitutionally have any respect to 
the sanction of slavery by governmental authority, and that the civil and ec- 
clesiastical rights of its members are at variance, and it thus seeks to involve 
him in the odium which attaches to the Conference for its oppressive meas- 
ures. Fully aware, too, from the reiterated assertions of Southern Delegates, 
that any interference with Bishop Andrew's official standing would necessarily 
result in a division of the Church, it seeks to make him responsible for such 
an issue, by pretending that he first violated Church-order, and that the South 



140 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

sustains him in his act even to the destruction of the integrity of the Church ; 
whereas, the severance of our Church-union cannot result from any past or 
prospective act of Bishop Andrew, but must inevitably take place in conse- 
quence of the unconstitutional position taken by the General Conference to- 
ward the institutions of the South — a position which the direct expulsion of 
Bishop Andrew could not render more, unsatisfactory, and which is not to be 
changed by his resignation. We hold that this unfair attempt to make Bishop 
Andrew responsible either to Southern sentiment by resigning and thus sus- 
taining the reprehensible act of the Conference, or to the Constitution by an 
unauthorized cessation of his official duties, or to the Conference as a contu- 
macious officer, or to the whole Church as the author of its disunion, is as dis- 
ingenuous and unworthy of true-hearted men as the decision by which this 
bitterness of spirit was manifested is contrary to sound policy and constitu- 
tional provisions. 

The action of the Conference was tyrannical. It was the act of a majority, 
governed by false views and unjustifiable prejudices — unconstitutional, impol- 
itic, and oppressive; and yet an act which the Conference persisted in con- 
summating, despite every effort used, every argument urged, and every en- 
treaty employed, to dissuade it from final action for four years, so that the 
voice of the Church and of the Annual Conferences could be heard on the sub- 
ject. Such postponement could not have seriously affected the interests of 
the Church, and in the interim the " sense" of the whole Church could have 
been ascertained. Such an act, so unauthorized, for lack of formal instruction 
from those who are the proper final judges of the extent of Bishop Andrew's 
" embarrassment," and one persisted in, unnecessarily, in full view of the dis- 
astrous consequences, must be characterized as a tyrannical exercise of 
power, which deprives us of undoubted rights; and it is so ominous of future 
unjust oppressions that we, as Southern 'members of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, have lost all hope of a maintenance of our constitutional immu- 
nities under the present organization of that Church. Therefore, 

1. Resolved, That we recommend to the Georgia Annual Conference, at its next 
session, to adopt such measures as its wisdom can devise for the immediate 
severance of our ecclesiastical union, in every respect, with that portion of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church which sustains the action of the late General 
Conference, in virtually suspending a Bishop from his high office merely be- 
cause he is a slave-holder; and we farther recommend the organization of a 
separate Methodist Episcopal Church, composed of members and ministers 
residing in the slave-holding States, and of such as can unite with them on 
their principles. 

2. Resolved, That we cordially approve of the conduct of the Delegates to 
the General Conference from the slave-holding States in resisting firmly and 
dispassionately all the encroachments of a lawless and tyrannical majority 
upon the rights of slave-holders, sustaining ministerial or official rank in the 
Church. 

-3. Resolved, That we highly esteem those Delegates from the non-slave- 
holding States who supported, by their advocacy and their votes, the Consti- 
tution of the Church, and the rights of slave-holders, firmly adhering to prin- 
ciples, even when they knew that "they of their own household " would be 
their future enemies. 

4. Resolved, That we tender to Bishop Andrew our cordial sympathy in this 
most afflictive trial to his mind and feelings, applaud him for'maintaining his 
position so decidedly against the formidable array of opposition which he had 
to encounter, and express to him our desire that he yield no deference to the 
declared " sense " of the Conference, but continue in the discharge of his epis- 
copal duties in the Southern Conferences, where his labor may be bestowed upon 
those who appreciate his ability, love his character, and delight, to honor both. 

5. Resolved, That we admire the capacity and zeal with which the venerable 
and beloved Bishop Soule opposed the unconstitutional aggressions of the 
majority of the Conference— hope that when the Clmrch is divided he will be 
with us'in fact as he is in principle, and pray that he may live many years to 
exercise the office of a Bishop in the Southern Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The above argument and resolutions, Dr. Elliott "being judge, 
are a fair "sample" of the immediate expression of opinion at the 
South; and I leave it to the candid reader of the history of this 
entire transaction to judge if the strength of the language is not 
fully justified by the facts and the arguments. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 141 



CHAPTER, X. 

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1848.— REPUDIATION OF 
THE PLAN OF SEPARATION. 

THE next important event bearing on the question 
in hand is the action of the General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1848. I con- 
fine myself to those facts directly related to my sub- 
ject. 

I. I notice first the reception of the Fraternal Mes- 
senger from the Church, South, appointed by the Pe- 
tersburg General Conference in 1846. Br. Lovick 
Pierce, who was the messenger selected, was early at 
the Conference, and addressed a respectful note to that 
body, stating his mission — that he was sent to bear to 
them the Christian salutations of the Church, South, 
and to assure them that it sincerely desired that the 
two great Wesle3?an bodies should maintain at all times 
a warm and confiding fraternal relation to each other; 
and that he ardently desired that they, on their part, 
would accept the offer in the same spirit of brotherly 
love and kindness. 

The Committee on the State of the Church, to which 
this note was referred, reported, in two days, 

That whereas there are serious questions and difficulties exist- 
ing hetween the two bodies, therefore, 

Resolved, That, while we tender to Rev. Dr. Pierce all personal 
courtesies, and invite him to attend our sessions, this General Con- 
ference does not consider it proper at present to enter into fra- 
ternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South: 
Provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be so con- 
strued as to operate as a bar to any propositions from Dr. Pierce, 
or any other representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 



142 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

South, toward the settlement of existing difficulties between that 
body and this. 

But as there were no "difficulties" — or, if any, at 
least none known in any official way to the Petersburg 
General Conference, unless as to the property ques- 
tion, which was in the hands of Commissioners of 
both Conferences* — Dr. Pierce could only depart with a 
kind word — stating that if ever the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church should at any time make the offer of fra- 
ternal relations to the Church, South, on the basis of the 
Plan of Separation of 1844, that Church will cordially 
entertain the proposition. f 

Let us inquire into the reasons for declining fra- 
ternization: 

Dr. Elliott tells us (p. 637) that neither the Church, South, nor 
Dr. Pierce considered, or acknowledged, that difficulties existed, 
and therefore a fraternal recognition would, in effect, go to say that 
the course of the South was as it ought to be, and the fraterniza- 
tion once recognized would preclude all farther adjustment, and 
this would virtually acknowledge the course of the South, and 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church was at fault. And again (p. 
695): Had Dr. Pierce's fraternizing proposition been accepted 
while the difficulties existed, there would be neither propriety nor 
place for adjusting difficulties, as the very act of fraternization 
must have superseded any such adjustment. And again (p. 677): 
There was little hope in the General Conference of an adjustment. 
It was not supposed that Dr. P. could assure the General Conference 
that Bishops Soule and Andrew would confess their offenses and 
promise amendment; that the South would retract the decisions 
of the Petersburg General Conference in approving their Bishops; 
that all claims to the Book Concern would be relinquished, except 
on the terms originally entered into by the whole Church; that the 
Southern editors should publicly retract their course — these and 
many unsound doctrines connected with them, it was believed, 
would not be retracted by the South; and to ask even such things 
would be received as an insult by the South. 

And yet, proh pudor! the Conference told Dr. Pierce 
if he had any propositions to make respecting these 
"difficulties," which "it was not supposed he had," he 
would be received fraternally. 

-Commissioners from the Church, South, reported themselves present in 
1818 " to adjust and settle all matters pertaining to the division of the Church- 
property arid funds, as provided for in the Plan of Separation. 1 ' 

f Bv some means this communication did not get into the Journal. Dr. El- 
liott quotes it from the Christian Adrocafe and Journal. Found also in Journal 
of St. Louis Conference, Church, South. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 143 

And Dr. Peck, chairman of the Committee on the 
State of the Church (here elected editor of the Chris- 
tian Advocate and Journal), wrote, July 12: 

Dr. Pierce asked the General Conference to settle the question 
of fraternal relations, as a preliminary measure. He professed to 
have no power to settle difficulties; the conflicts for territory and 
Church-property were beyond his reach. The two bodies were not 
in a state of amity, therefore a messenger for that object alone 
could not be received. To receive Dr. P. would be considered as 
acknowledging the course of the South, and even to give a pledye 
to submit to such proceedings in future. (See Great Secession, 
p. 677.) 

The Church, South, ought perhaps to be excused — ■ 
having just set up — for not recognizing these principles 
before seeking fraternal relations; bat her fatal -mis- 
take ought to be a warning to all other bodies, under 
like circumstances, to settle all outstanding difficulties 
before attempting fraternization. 

II. But the General Conference of 1848 is noted in 
this controversy for repudiating the Plan of Separation 
of 1844. Let me say first of this body that it was not 
a party to the agreement of 1844; for, 

1. Of course it was a body elected after an interval 
of four years, and representing a constituency of that 
date rather than of the past. It was a new General 
Conference out and out — not the same body — conse- 
quently, in that sense, not a party to the agreement. 

2. It did not represent the same constituency, except 
in part. In 1844 the preachers of thirty-three Annual 
Conferences were represented; in 1848, of these Con- 
ferences, only twenty remained as the constituency of 
this body, the other thirteen having, by an arrange- 
ment made by "the whole Church," as Dr. Elliott, per- 
haps inadvertently, but truly, says above, considered 
themselves at liberty to meet elsewhere, without detri- 
ment to any of their rights. This Conference did not 
succeed, did not represent, the Conferenc6 of 1844 or 
its constituency, and so was not a party to the Plan it 
repudiated. Bat of this I will say more hereafter. 
Its action was ex parte, is all I need say now, and 
those aggrieved and injured by it were not, and never 
have been, heard in defense of the allegations aarainst 
them. 



144 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

3. It may be gratifying to Methodists of the present 
generation, who delight to honor "the fathers" for 
their Christian consistency, to know that of the rep- 
resentatives of this partial constituency of the old 
Church there were but few who in 1844 voted for the 
Plan that in 1848 repudiated it; in another sense, 
therefore, the Conference of 1848 was not a party to 
the agreement of 1844. On the rescinding resolution 
there were 142 votes — 132 ayes, 10 nays. Of the voters 
41 were at the Conference of 1844; of the 41 there 
were 11 who voted against the Plan; of the 30 remain- 
ing 5* voted against repudiation — leaving but 25, out 
of the 132 ayes, who repudiated their own action of 
1844; an'd these might have been subtracted then from 
the affirmative vote, and yet the Plan have carried by 
a Northern majority. 

If it be said that only those of the Conference of 
1844 who were pledged to repudiation were reelected in 
1848, it speaks well for the majority of 1844; and while 
it shows that even good men may sometimes mistake 
policy for principle, it does not make repudiation 
righteous. 

And now we examine the action of 1848 more par- 
ticularly. It took the shape of four "declarations" — 
the last divided into eight items. I judge, from what 
Dr. Elliott says, that the Eeport "furnishing the rea- 
sons for the action of the Conference" was not pre- 
sented till some days afterward, it being now "in 
course of preparation." But though the repudiation 
came first, and the reasons for it afterward, I shall ex- 
amine both in conjunction. 

First Declaration. — There exists no power in the General Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church to pass any act which, 
either directly or indirectly, effectuates, authorizes, or sanctions a 
division of said Church. 

Here is a-begging of the question, and the "final re- 
port" does not argue the point. As to the abstract 
question, I have something to say hereafter. This was 
a case of declaring principles after, as was charged, 
they had been infracted in 1844 by the majority, and 
that majority one of representatives of their own 

* One of these went over a clay or two :ifterwar<), making 2G. 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 145 

Conferences. The remedy was not to put the mi- 
nority, who had already accepted the Plan in good 
faith, in the wrong, but it would have been to de- 
vise some measure to make that action legitimate. 
Illegal acts, done by mistake or through inadvertency, 
are often legalized. General agreement, the lapse of 
time, peaceful possession for a term of years, and even 
necessity, in cases where great personal injustice does 
not offset the great public benefit, often make legiti- 
mate ultimately what was not wholly so in its incipiency ; 
and where not thus becoming legitimate, subsequent 
legislation has often made it so. I do not offer this 
as argument, but only to show that doubt as to legality 
did not make repudiation imperative. 

Second Declaration. — It is the right of every member of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church to remain in said Church, unless 
guilty of the violation of its rules; and there exists no power in 
the ministry, either individually or collectively, to deprive any 
member of said right. 

No need to discuss this, for even if true, under all 
circumstances, it is not pertinent. If it prove any 
thing, it proves too much — it proves that if one single 
member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the 
Church, had demanded, in opposition to five hundred 
thousand members, that the jurisdiction of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church must not be withdrawn, for he 
wished "to remain in said Church," and it must not 
"deprive him of the right," then must the entire body 
have yielded to his wish. Preposterous! And it was 
not much better with two thousand seven hundred 
and thirty -five making this claim out of the half 
million. 

Third Declaration. — This right being inviolably secured by the 
Fifth Restrictive Article of the Discipline, which guarantees to 
members, ministers, and preachers the right of trial and appeal, 
any acts of the Church otherwise separating them from the Church 
contravene the constitutional rights and privileges of ministry and 
membership. 

Dr. Durbin wisely said: "The Fifth Eestrictive Ar- 
ticle referred only to privileges where members are ac- 
cused of some immorality or violation of discipline. 
In such cases they must have a trial and privilege of 

7 



146 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

appeal." I suppose that those who passed this Declara- 
tion would allow that it was a strained construction of 
the Constitution to apply it to the case of the "divis- 
ion" of the Church, when they had so often said that 
the Constitution never contemplated division — had no- 
where provided for or against it. This Article was made 
to secure justice to an accused member — one in Tennes- 
see, we will say. Does the Plan provide for an in- 
fraction of the Article? After separation of the 
Tennessee Conference from the original jurisdiction, 
such a member would be tried in the same Society, by 
the same persons and law, have an appeal to the same 
Quarterly or Annual Conference (beyond which no ap- 
peal of a private member or local preacher could go), 
as though the Church had remained undivided. Whose 
rights, then, did division take away? Traveling preach- 
ers could carry an appeal to the General Conference, 
and for them the division made no change, except that 
the appellate body was not constituted now of both 
Northern and Southern Delegates. If any preacher 
on either side objected, he was at liberty, "without 
blame," to transfer his "adherence" — as some did. 

This division of the Church was about equivalent to 
that which took place when charges, or circuits, or 
Conferences* were divided, and the expulsion less, in 
effect, than was constantly haj)pening by the leaving 
out of appointments from the "plan of the circuit." 
This interpretation would have made it "unconstitu- 
tional" thus to leave out an isolated and almost de- 
funct "Society" of one or two members. 

Not only w~as this a strained construction of the 
Constitution, but it contradicts all precedent. Mr. 
Wesley had set off the American Societies, releasing 
them from amenability to himself, and yet it was not 
considered that the members thereby lost any of their 
rights as Methodists. f Nor did Mr. Wesley consider 
that this partition of jurisdiction was in any evil sense 
a division of Methodism. He wrote, within about a 

* See Bishop Morris's letter, p. 118. 

t Divisions ofjurisdietion between the British Wesleyans and their distant So- 
cieties have been frequent— one while these chapters are preparing for the press 
— viz.: that by which the independent. "Methodist Church in Canada" has 
been erected, by consent of the British Conference, from the Wesleyan So- 
cieties. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 147 

month of his death, to the Bev. Ezekiel Cooper, in this 
country : " See that you never give place to one thought 
of separating from your brethren in Europe; lose no 
opportunity of declaring to all men that the Methodists 
are one people in all the world, and that it is their de- 
termination so to continue." 

Farther precedents were to be found in the surrender 
of Lower Canada to the English Wesleyans in 1820-1, 
and in the provision made in 1828 for a peaceful sep- 
aration of the Conference in Upper Canada, and its 
erection into an independent Methodist Episcopal 
Church. But as these cases are said not to contradict 
this first dictum of the Declaration, and that they can- 
not be pleaded as precedents,* I shall discuss them here- 
after very fully. 

It seemed difficult to make the fourth Declaration 
satisfactory. Mr. Collins proposed, as a substitute, a 
board of commissioners, in effect, to settle all "difficul- 
ties" and to confirm the separation; lost — only twen- 
ty-two voting for it. Dr. G-. Peck offered a substitute, 
which was laid on the table, and one offered by Dr. 
Simpson prevailed. This was divided into eight sec- 
tions. I give them, changing the order a little for con- 
venience of examination: 

1. Sec. 1. The Keport of the Select Committee on the Declara- 
tion, etc., of which the memorialists [two thousand seven hundred 
and thirty-five Methodists in the South] complain, and the opera- 
tion of which deprived them of their privileges as members of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, was intended to meet a necessity 
which, it was alleged, might arise, and was given as a peace-offer- 
ing to secure harmony on the Southern border. 

This may be granted, provided it was not understood 
to be "a peace-offering" only — good if the Plan was 
never acted on ; to be revoked if accepted and acted on, 

*The value and authority of precedents in resolving doubtful constitutional 
questions is stated in Story on the Constitution, pp. 127-9 : "A more alarming doc- 
trine could not be promulgated by any court than that it was at liberty to dis- 
regard all former rules and decisions, and to decide for itself, without reference 
to the settled course of antecedent principles. ... If there ever was a 
case in which uniformity of interpretation might be well deemed a necessary 
postulate, it would seem to be that of a fundamental law of government/' 
Moreover, the Methodist Episcopal Church ought not to have pronounced so 
broadly its doctrine above, and thus repudiated its precedents; for the oppo- 
site doctrine and the precedents may yet be needed by that Church— will be 
if that idea, mooted at times, prevails of setting apart"the foreign European 
work into a distinct jurisdiction. Or, war might create the necessity or up- 
holding a different doctrine. 



148 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

as if offered in good faith — granted if something more 
and better than a ruse, a "tub to the whale," a "sop to 
Cerberus." The South does not so discount the hon- 
esty of "the fathers" as to imagine they were playing 
a trick amid their tears and prayers. 

2. Sec. 4. Without waiting, as this Conference believes, for the 
occurrence of the anticipated necessity for which the Plan was 
framed, action was taken in the premises by the Southern Dele- 
gates. 

The final report complains much of what the Dele- 
gates did after the General Conference. The acts of 
the General Conference, they say, did not produce the 
necessity of separation. The Delegates did it. They 
should have gone home, quieted the public mind, re- 
sisted insubordination — or, if not, have done nothing. 
But I submit that this General Conference was not the 
proper judge of the necessities of the Southern Church. 
The Plan left it to the Southern Conferences alone to 
settle this question, and they did it. I refer to what I 
have heretofore written to prove, and I claim that all 
history will sustain my opinion, that the action of the 
Delegates was wise, conserved the Church from break- 
ing into fragments, and saved Methodism at the South. 

3. Sec. 2. It was farther made dependent (1) upon the conse- 
quence [sic, concurrence (?) ] of three-fourths of the members of 
the several Annual Conferences, in reference to a part of its regu- 
lations. 

And, Sec. 5. The Annual Conferences, by their votes, officially 
received, have refused to concur with that part of the Plan. 

This last is not a controverted fact (though I have 
found no official report of the vote), unless it be on the 
ground of abstention from voting by some Conferences. 
Then, whether the vote was negative may be questioned 
on the principle of law, "Qui tacet verbo et facto, ubi 
eloqui vel resistere potest ac debet, consentire videtur"* 
— in effect, in this case, the Conferences voted affirm- 
atively. (See Liebefs Hermeneutics, p. 18.) 

The "final report" asserts that though "the ratifi- 
cation of the Plan was not directly, and in so many 
words, submitted to the Annual Conferences, yet it is 

*Was it on this principle that Dr. Durbin, voting generally "yea," voted 
" nay " on this section? 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 149 

evident that, in the honest opinion of the Southern 
brethren, it was, in effect, so submitted." The proof is 
found in two extracts, which, the committee say, "in 
their connections," establish their opinion. I have, in 
former instances, given these extracts, in their connec- 
tions, and I give the reader liberty to find them — if he 
can. 

That the assumption of the G-eneral Conference of 
1848 is not justified by the facts of the case, I have, I 
think, conclusively proved, not only by the terms and 
form of the Plan itself, but also (1) by the expressed 
opinions of Northern Delegates of 1814 — both of those 
favoring and of those opposing the Plan; (2) by the 
opinions, then given, of Drs. Capers, Paine, and Winans; 
(3) by letters and articles written within a little time 
by Drs. Bangs, Peck, Finley, Bond, Durbin, Capers, 
and Paine; (4) by the action of the Northern Confer- 
ences on the Restrictive Article; (5) by the action of 
the Southern Conferences, and their instructions to 
Delegates to the Louisville Convention; (6) by showing 
that the earliest intimation of non-concurrence did not 
contemplate a defeat of separation, but only of with- 
holding the property from the South; (7) by the course 
of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, after 
the Conferences had voted on the Restrictive Article, 
in conforming their administration to the Plan, inter- 
preting its provisions, and giving instructions to the 
Churches how to carry them out — action approved by 
the Conference of 1848. It is not for me to vindicate 
any inconsistency there. 

In farther proof of the falsity of this assumption, I 
will add: It might have been proved, in the cases 
afterward brought before the courts, that the Plan of 
Separation was never enacted; because the Conferences 
had not concurred. This being established, there would 
have been no need for any other argument. It was 
pleaded; yet even Judge Leavitt, who decided the 
Ohio case in favor of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
did not base his decision on this ground, but on the 
want of plenary power in the G-eneral Conference it- 
self. 

4. Sec. 3. And (2) upon the observance of certain provisions re- 



150 The Disruption of the M. B. Church. 

speoting a boundary, by the distinct ecclesiastical Connection sep- 
arating from us, should such Connection be formed. 

And, Sec. 6. And the provisions respecting a boundary have been 
violated by the highest authorities of said Connection, which sep- 
arated from us, and thereby the peace and harmony of many So- 
cieties in our Southern border have been destroyed. 

I shall not controvert this last statement. However 
true, the annulling of the Plan was not the proper rem- 
edy. But the Plan could not have made separation de- 
pend upon observing provisions respecting a "border," 
when there could have been no border till after separa- 
tion had been consummated. The observance of this 
provision was no condition whatever, except a condi- 
tion of subsequent peace and harmony. The General 
Conference of 1848 — not the Plan — made it a condition 
to keeping faith with the South; and the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, for any violations on the part of the 
South, has amply avenged itself, from Maryland to 
Texas. 

The "border" difficulty grew out of the variant in- 
terpretations of the Plan.* It was a question of "con- 
struction;" and the remedy, the only righteous rem- 
edy, was in arbitration, or in the courts of justice. 
This question will come up hereafter. 

5. Sec. 7. Therefore, in view of these facts, as well as for the 
principles contained in the preceding declarations, there exists no 
obligation on the part of this Conference to observe the provisions 
of said Plan. 

Sec. 8. And it is hereby declared null and void. 

And now the gist of the "difficulties" between the 
two Churches is whether or not this repudiation was 
authorized by the facts on which it was based, or is 
sustained by sound moral and legal principles, or is a 
righteous judgment in any aspect. 

Mr. Davis, who, in 1844, was one of those who took 
the "laboring oar," left the Conference without the 
excuse of hasty and inconsiderate blundering, for he, 
opposing these resolutions, maintained: 

This Conference has not the right to pronounce the Plan "null and 
void." It involves the right to separate, without revolution, with- 
out violent disruption, without the reproach of schism, and of peace- 
able and unmolested occupation of territory. On constitutional 

*See note at conclusion of chapter. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 151 

grounds, this Conference has no right to pass upon the acts of 1844. 
The Plan may he unconstitutional, "hut we have not the right to 
pronounce it so." 

Manifestly right; for to repeal the legislation of a past 
General Conference, which it might effect if repeal dis- 
turb no rights acquired by such legislation, is far dif- 
ferent from undoing its acts — nullifying a solemn cove- 
nant — whereby rights have been conveyed that can- 
not, and ought not to, be recalled. But more of this 
hereafter. Let us get on with the history of connected 
events. 

The Book Concern question was still unsettled. It 
was resolved that the Agents should take legal advice 
as to the power the Conference might have of submit- 
ting the claims of the South to arbitration. If not au- 
thorized to do this, should suit be commenced, then 
they were to tender adjustment by legal arbitration. 
To proffer arbitration to the South was deemed unau- 
thorized, and the South would not submit to arbitra- 
tion as to the legality of its action in consummating 
the separation. Suits were brought in the United 
States Circuit Courts of New York, June 13, 1849, and 
of Ohio, July 12, 1849* for the property in New York 
and Cincinnati. In the New York suit, decision was 
given in favor of the Church, South, November 11, 1851, 
and the matter settled December 8, 1853. The case in 
Cincinnati in July, 1852, went adversely to the Church, 
South; and it was carried to the Supreme Court of the 
United States, where, on April 25, 1854, by a full bench 
of eight justices — Judge McLean, a Methodist, who had 
already expressed his opinions, declining to sit in the 
case — the judgment of the Ohio Circuit Court was re- 
versed, and the Plan of Separation enforced. Thus 
was the action of the South vindicated by the highest 
judicial authority in the land. 

That decision offered a fit opportunity for the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, without loss of honor or self- 
respect, to pronounce that, whatever its decision in 
1848. it was now fully justified in recalling it, and ac- 
knowledging the Church. South, as a legitimate Out- 
s' I am particular in giving these dates, because it has been often alleged 
that Dr. Pierce was not received in 184$, lest it should prejudice the issue of 
pending suits for the Book Concern property. 



152 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

growth of the ecumenical Methodism of 1844, as pro- 
vided for by the Plan of Separation, and that, too, 
without constraining the opinions of any person con- 
cerning the reasons for, and the propriety of, enacting 
that Plan. But, unfortunately for Christian harmony, 
this was not done; and so there is more history to write. 

Note. — I have said that the variant interpretations of the Plan 
respecting the border was a question of "construction," for arbitra- 
tors or for the courts to settle. Without pretending to decide which 
of these diverse interpretations was right, I submit both of them, 
here to the judgment of my readers^ — asking them to refer likewise 
to that earlier interpretation given by Bishop Morris in the letter 
from him, given at page 118. 

Southern Construction, 
Given at the Petersburg General Conference, 1846. 

The construction put upon the provisions of this rule by the Bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and by those of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, for any thing that appears to the contrary to your committee is that 
it gives a plain, permissive grant of occupancy to the Southern Churches along 
the borders northwardly, until the dividing line is satisfactorily settled and de- 
termined, by the formal adherence North of a definite line of Societies and 
stations. This ascertained, then the Societies and stations lying beyond that 
line become interior charges,whieh are to be left undisturbed by the Southern 
ministry. But the line of division never becomes fixed until such an art of 
adherence North takes place. This act alone is made, by the aforesaid rule, 
the condition of protection against the advance of the Southern boundary, and 
vice versa. Such a construction of the law alone secures to border Societies the 
rights and privileges allowed by the Plan of Separation, and provides, at the 
same time, for the peace and security of the border region. 

A question has been raised whether the decisions of a border Annual Con- 
ference to adhere to the Methodist Episcopal Church does not necessarily 
carry with it all the Societies and stations on the Southern border. 

To affirm this, however, would be to deny to these Societies and stations the 
precise rights of choice and adherence guaranteed to them by the very terms 
of the Plan of Separation. The rule embraces stations, Societies, and Confer- 
ences. To the former, in broad distinction from the latter, it grants the priv- 
ilege of choosing, independently of the position of the Annual Conference, to 
which of the two Churches they prefer to adhere. The very terms of the Plan, 
as well as its principles and the animus imponentis, settle* this question, and 
concede to all border charges, irrespective of Conference action, the right to 
elect for themselves, by resolution of the majority, the ecclesiastical position 
which they prefer; and so far from its being true that the Annual Conferences 
hold the right of determining primarily in this matter, the reverse is the fact. 
It is connection with the border, and not with the Annual Conferences, which is 
the material thing. Conferences, as such, may make their adherence, North 
or South; but so may Societies and stations on the boundary-line, with the 
freedom of election perfectly untrammeled by what the General Conference 
has done, and with a right, so far as the provisional' grant of the Plan is con- 
cerned, as distinct and primary, as that of the Conference, since no distinc- 
tion in favor of one or the other is made in the grant. 

The disciplinary boundary-line of a border Conference, adhering North or 
South, prior to the action of the Societies, brings those Societies lying on the 
line into the Northern or Southern Church, as the case may be, and renders it 
unnecessary for the Societies here referred to to take formal action, if they 
agree in sentiment with the Annual Conference. If, however, they do not thus 
agree, the Conference action does not bind them. They may take action as 
Societies, or as charges— that is, circuits— and, adhering to the other Church, 
they transfer the boundary-line to the next tier of Societies adjoining, which 
thus become a line of border Societies; and they may, in time, by a similar 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 153 

action, transmit the border relation and the provisional rights and privileges 
to those immediately beyond them. Thus the line is movable, northwardly 
or southwardly, until a line of Societies or circuits is found which coincides 
in their affinities and election with those of the Annual Conference, and thus 
it becomes fixed. Then all beyond is considered the field of "interior 
charges," which, by the terms of the Plan, are, in all cases, to be left to the 
care of that Church within whose territory they are situated. The right of the 
border circuits to the benefits of the provisional arrangements of the Plan has 
also been denied. This has been urged chiefly on the ground that in the Plan 
the term circuits is not used. The construction in question maintains that those 
Societies alone of a border circuit lying adjoining the dividing line are in- 
vested with the right of choice, and violently considers the remainder of the 
circuit interior charges! which, by this summary interpretation, are cut off from 
all participation in the privilege of electing for themselves the Church to which 
they will adhere. 

But the answer to this is obvious. 

The Methodist Book of Discipline and the law of Methodist usage nowhere 
consider a single Society or a circuit a charge. The entire circuit, composed 
of many or few Societies, as the case may be, is a single charge, under the 
pastoral oversight of a preacher, stationed by the authorized officer at the An- 
nual Conference. No one Society, except it be a station, is a pastoral charge 
to the exclusion of the rest comprehended in the circuit. Interior charges are 
circuits, or stations, distinct in supervision, and lying back of the frontier, or 
border-line, and barred from the provisions of the Plan only by the adverse 
action of the intermediate circuit or station. 

Northern Construction. 

The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church gave their interpretation 
of the rule nearly a year afterward, March 3, 4, 1847. Their Minutes say: 
" Bishop Hedding presented for consideration several subjects connected with 
our administration, relative to border work under the Plan of Separation, 
adopted' by the last General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
when it was 

" 1. Resolved, That the Plan of Separation aforesaid provides for taking the 
votes by Conferences, stations, and Societies, and not by circuits, in fixing 
their Church-relations. 

"2. Resolved, That in our administration, under said Plan of Separation, we 
consider the period of taking the vote of the Conferences, stations, and So- 
cieties is limited: for Conferences to the time of their next session after the 
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Chuch, South, and for stations and 
Societies to the time of the first session of their respective Annual Conferences 
subsequent to said organization. 

" 3. Resolved, That in our administration we will, under the Plan of Separa- 
tion aforesaid, consider the first vote regularly and fairly taken after the or- 
ganization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by any border station 
or Society South of the line of separation as final in fixing its relation to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, or the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

"4. Resolved, therefore, That we can send no preacher to any station or So- 
ciety South of the line of separation, which, subsequent to the oi-ganization 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has once received a preacher from 
said Church, without remonstrance from a majority of its members. 

"5. Resolved, also, That when a border station or Society North of the line 
of separation has once received a preacher from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church— subsequent to the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South — without remonstrance from the majority of said station or Society, it 
fixes the Church-relation of said station or Society to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, even if it were to be admitted that the Plan of Separation allows sta- 
tions and Societies North of said line to vote on this subject of Church-rela- 
tionship." 

Let it be borne in mind tbat we do not assert either the correct- 
ness or incorrectness of one or the other of these interpretations. 
But we do insist that it was a question of "construction" for the 
courts to settle, and not for the ex parte decision of the Conference 
of 1848. 

7* 



154 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 



CHAPTER XI. 

TWO DIVISIONS OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
PRIOR TO 1844. 

IN view of the facts of previous history, those were 
very extraordinary postulates of the General Con- 
ference of 1848 — namely: 

That there exists no power in the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church to pass any act which, either directly 
or indirectly, effectuates, authorizes, or sanctions a division of said 
Church; that it is the right of every member to remain in said 
Church, unless guilty of a violation of its rules; and there exists 
no power in the ministry, either individually or collectively, to de- 
prive any member of said right — a right inviolably secured by the 
Fifth Kestrictive Article in the Discipline, which guarantees to 
members, ministers, and preachers the right of trial and appeal; 
and any acts of the Church otherwise separating them from the 
Church contravene the constitutional rights and privileges of min- 
istry and membership. 

I propose to show that these reasons, given for pro- 
nouncing the Plan of Separation "null and void," are 
themselves rendered "null and void" by two instances 
in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
when what is here pronounced unconstitutional was 
done by the General Conference itself. I allude to 
partitions in Canada, of which I proceed to give ac- 
count. 

The first case was an absolute surrender of Lower 
Canada to the British Wesleyan Conference — an ex- 
change of Church -territory ; and as it was done without 
consulting the members, there were, doubtless, some 
who were thus "directly deprived of the right to re- 
main in the Methodist Episcopal Church" for no "vio- 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 155 

lation of its rules." Dr. John Emory was the Ameri- 
can Agent in this transfer, and we find a fair account 
of this transaction in his Life* 

Methodism had been planted in Canada by the pio- 
neer preachers of Northern New York. During the 
War of 1812 the American Conference was careful to 
appoint natives of Great Britain; but their Church- 
relations with this country made them objectionable 
to some, who preferred to receive their preachers from 
the British Conference. Yet the majority were strongly 
attached to the American preachers. Out of these 
facts grew events more or less parallel with — though, 
in some things, much unlike — other events to be re- 
corded in a subsequent chapter. But it is well to note 
the agreement, or disagreement, as we pass on. 

The British Conference, taking advantage of circum- 
stances, sent missionaries into Lower Canada. These, 
"instead of directing their efforts, as they had been in- 
structed, to unoccupied ground, began to interfere with 
the Societies already formed by the American preach- 
ers, taking possession of their chapels [I do not know 
that the war minister ordered it, as in a parallel case 
in the South], and endeavoring to induce the members 
to join the British Connection." A church in Mon- 
treal was taken possession of by the British missionary, 
who had been sent, by request of a few official mem- 
bers, to the exclusion of the regularly appointed 
preacher. [Farther parallelism.] Bishop Asbury 
wrote, January 15, 1816, to the Eev. Joseph Benson: 

" We have planted, we have watered, we have taken a most sacred 
charge of Upper and Lower Canada for about twenty-two years. 
. . . We. as ministers of Christ, think it a sin of sins to divide 
the body of Christ" [of course by local divisions, such as these mis- 
sionaries were effecting]. He says that special caution to avoid 
all civil and political interference was given to his missionaries 
[parallelism fails]; and that "two-thirds of the Society in Mon- 
treal would prefer our preachers." He adds: "But we shall bear 
long, suffer long, make every explanation, till the charge is given 
up to us. Whether this thing has been done through ignorance 
or the influence of wicked and designing men, we shall give our 
fathers and brethren time to inform themselves, and time to cor- 
rect their conduct; for we are sure that our Episcopacy could never 

-See, also, Bangs' s History of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 



156 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

so act out of order as to send a preacher to take possession of a 
charge so consequential under the oversight of the parent Con- 
nection." 

There was no agreement between the two Connec- 
tions violated in this case, as in the intrusion, during 
and after the Confederate war, into the South; and 
Bishop Andrew might have addressed Bishop Ames — 
mutatis mutandis — a much stronger letter in 1865-6. 
But I am anticipating. 

Delegates from the British Conference were at the 
General Conference of 1816, proposing that the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church should be confined to Upper 
Canada, and that Lower Canada should be surrendered 
to the Wesleyans. The answer was: 

We cannot, consistently with our duty to the Societies under our 
charge in the Canadas, give up any part of them, or any of our 
chapels in those Provinces, to the superintendence of the British 
Connection. 

Subsequent Conferences wisely reviewed and set 
aside this opinion, as we shall see, and consented to 
the exchange.* 

The next British Conference sent three more mis- 
sionaries, and continued its labor in Montreal — recom- 
mending, however, "that the premises be given up, 
unless voluntary use of them be allowed." 

In 1819 Bishop McKendree received a letter from 
the Missionary Committee, London, stating 

That instructions had been given to their missionaries "to preach 
in no chapel now jointly occupied by the American brethren; and, 
for the sake of peace, to pursue their labors separately, and not to 
continue in any station previously occupied by the American 
brethren, except where the population is so large and so scattered 
that it is evident a very considerable part of them is neglected. 
Instructions have been sent to these missionaries that it was not 
intended they should invade the Societies raised up by the preach- 
ers appointed by the American Conference, and divide them," etc. 

In short, they were instructed not to pursue a policy 
of "disintegration and absorption," and here the par- 
allelism fails. 

In 1820 urgent memorials were sent to the General 

*It is interesting to inquire, just here, Where was. the " compact"— the 
legal fiction of 1828, to be noted presently— when Bishop Asbury thus wrote, 
and the Conference thus answered, this proposal? 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 157 

Conference from Societies in the Canadas, praying for 
some prompt and decisive action in reference to the 
increasing difficulties, and it was 

Resolved, That it is the duty of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
to continue their episcopal charge over our Societies in the Can- 
adas: Provided, nevertheless, that the Episcopacy shall have au- 
thority to negotiate with the British Conference respecting Lower 
Canada, in the way and manner they shall see fit. 

The Bishops — McKendree, George, and Boberts" — 
were authorized to send a commissioner to England. 
They selected Dr. Emory, and, in their instructions, 
said : 

We are of opinion that the most effectual means to prevent col- 
lisions in future will be to establish a specific line, by which our 
field of labor shall be bounded on the one side and that of the 
British missionaries on the other. [Almost the precise Plan fallen 
on in 1844.] You are at liberty to stipulate that our preachers 
shall confine their labors in Canada to the Upper Province, pro- 
vided that the British missionaries will confine theirs to the 
Lower. 

Here we have divisive action "authorized" by the 
Conference, and inaugurated by the Bishops, in direct 
contravention of the denial in 1848 of power to do 
this thing. And the division was consummated; for 
Dr. Emory went to England, and was received grace- 
fully by the Missionary Committee. He writes : 

By some of the most distinguished members of it the union of 
the Methodist bodies throughout the world was distinctly avowed 
a* of most sacred and paramount importance; the occupation of 
our premises in Montreal was admitted to be wholly indefensible; 
and, also, any interference with our Societies or chapels in any 
other part; the influence of political considerations was held to be 
inconsistent with the character and duties of the committee; 
. . . in short, they declared themselves heartily glad to have 
this opportunity to correct any mistakes which might have been 
heretofore made. 

Here, again, the parallel has thus far failed; and I 
ask attention to the facts cited, as they show how 
Christian men can undo a wrong, they or their repre- 
sentatives may have done, gracefully and without any 
sense of humiliation, or without "eating humble pie," 
as Dr. Curry would elegantly characterize a like con- 
cession to justice on the parjt of his Church. 



158 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

Dr. Emory succeeded in his mission, and the Confer- 
ence of 1824 received his report, and returned to him 
"thanks for his active zeal and indefatigable diligence 
in faithfully and satisfactorily fulfilling the duties of 
his office," etc. — that is, for having exchanged away a 
portion of Episcopal Methodism, local preachers and 
people, chapels and parsonages, not to an autonomic 
coordinate jurisdiction, but to become a dependency to 
an- alien, though kindred, Communion. Yet there is 
no power in a General Conference, said that body in 
1848, "to pass any act which, directly or indirectly, 
authorizes, effectuates, or sanctions a division of said 
Church," or which can deprive one of membership in 
it, except after proper trial for violating law! 

In conformity to a stipulation with Dr. Emory that 
the American Bishops should address "the private and 
official members, trustees," etc., under the care of their 
preachers in Lower Canada, Bishop McKendree, Octo- 
ber 16, 1820, sent them a circular letter, in which he 
said: 

It has been agreed that our British brethren shall supply the 
Lower Provinces, and our preachers the Upper. It becomes our 
duty, therefore, to inform you of this agreement, and to advise 
you, in the most affectionate and earnest manner, to put yourselves 
and your chapels under the care of our British brethren, as their 
Societies and chapels in the Upper Province will be put under our 
care. . . . This communication, we confess, is not made with- 
out pain. . . . But necessity is laid upon us. ... It is a 
peace-offering. . . . Forgive, therefore, our seeming to give 
you up. 

When Bishop McKendree wrote this, how did he un- 
derstand that "constitutional" provision which so fully 
"guarantees to members, ministers, and preachers the 
right of trial and appeal," as that "any acts of the 
Church otherwise separating them from our Church 
contravene" their "constitutional rights?" for this 
thing was done not with the consent of all the mem- 
bership; and another division — that of Upper Can- 
ada, in 1828 — was, in part, the result of disaffection 
growing out of this transaction. This division was 
consummated when, in February, 1821, commission- 
ers from each Connection met in Montreal, and 
fixed the time and manner of delivering up the sev- 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 159 

eral charges which were to be relinquished on both 
sides. 

Dr. Elliott endeavors to break the force of this prec- 
edent by saving that, in 1820, the "Bishops withdrew 
their supervision from Lower Canada, and the Societies 
acquiesced'' in it. But not every member; and, be- 
sides, what the Bishops did was authorized and ap- 
proved — sanctioned — by the General Conference, and 
Dr. Emory was applauded for negotiating the affair. 
The case is beautifully analogous to that of the Church. 
South. In July. 1845, as has been seen, the Bishops 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, acting under au- 
thority of the Plan of Separation, "withdrew their 
supervision 1 ' from the Southern Conferences, and the 
Societies more than acquiesced in it; and the acts of 
the Bishops were approved at the next General Con- 
ference — but the acquiescence of those who inaugurated 
the movement is lacking. 

It is refreshing, amid the bitter contentions of these 
latter years, to look back to those days of yore, and 
see the lofty Christian spirit which prevailed in this 
transaction. What a happy, practical method was that 
of "the fathers" of inaugurating and perpetuating 
fraternal relations! — the reality of fellowship rather 
than the appearance — something more than "vox, et 
prceterea nihil." How easily could the two Methodisms 
now make peace, if a spirit prevailed like that which 
dictated the instructions from the Secretaries of the 
British Missionary Committee to their missionaries in 
Canada! A few passages from the document — doubt- 
less from the pen of the eminent Richard Watson — 
may be inserted here, as peculiarly suggestive. After 
referring to the resolution of the British Conference 
respecting this partition of jurisdiction, the Secretaries 
write : 

We have given you the resolutions in full, that you may see that 
we have recognized the principle that the Methodist body is one 
throughout the world; and that, therefore, its members are bound 
to cordial affection and brotherly union. 

The resolutions of the committee, passed some time ago and for- 
warded for your guidance, prohibiting any interference with the 
work of the American brethren, would show you that the existence 
of collisions between us and them gave us serious concern, and 



160 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

that the committee were anxious to remove, as far as they at that 
time were acquainted with the circumstances, every occasion of 
dispute. 

Certainly the case of Montreal Chapel was one which we could 
never justify to our minds; and the committee have, in many in- 
stances, had hut a partial knowledge of the real religious wants of 
the Upper Province, and of its means of supply. The only rea- 
son we could have for increasing the number of missionaries in 
that Province was the presumption of a strong necessity arising 
out of the destitute condition of the inhabitants, and the total want, 
or too great distance, of ministers. 

On no other ground could we apply money raised for missionary 
purposes for the supply of preachers to Upper Canada. The in- 
formation we have had for two years past has all served to show 
that the number of preachers employed there by the American 
brethren was greater than we had at first supposed, and was con- 
stantly increasing. 

To us, therefore, it now appears that, though there may be places 
in that Province which are not visited, they are within the range, 
or constantly coming within the range, of the extended American 
itinerancy; and that Upper Canada does not present to our efforts 
a ground so fully and decidedly missionary as the Lower Province, 
where much less help exists, and a great part of the population is 
involved in popish superstition. 

We know that political reasons exist in many minds for supply- 
ing even Upper Canada, as far as possible, with British missiona- 
ries; and however natural this feeling may be to Englishmen, and 
even praiseworthy when not carried too far, it will be obvious to 
you that this is a ground on which, as a missionary society, and 
especially as a society under the direction of a committee which 
recognizes as brethren, and one with itself, the American Method- 
ists, we cannot act. 

Upon any political feeling, which may exist either in your minds 
or in the minds of a party in any place, we cannot, therefore, pro- 
ceed. Our objects are purely spiritual, and our American brethren 
and ourselves are one body of Christians, sprung from a common 
stock, holding the same doctrines, enforcing the same discipline, 
and striving in common to spread the light of true religion through 
the world. 

In conformity with these views, we have long thought it a re- 
proach, and doing more injury by disturbing the harmony of the two 
Connections than could be counterbalanced by any local good, that 
the same city or town should see two congregations, and two Socie- 
ties, and two preachers professing the same form of Christianity, 
and yet thus proclaiming themselves rivals to each other, and, in 
some instances, invading each other's Societies and chapels, and 
thus producing party feelings. The purposes of each, we are ready 
to allow, have been good, though mistaken; and we rather blame 
ourselves for not having obtained more accurate information on 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 161 

some particulars than intimate any dissatisfaction with the mission- 
aries in the Canada*, with whose zeal and labors we have so muuh 
reason to be satisfied. 

You will consider these resolutions as the fruit of a very ample 
inquiry, and of serious deliberation. 

None of the principles here adopted by us do indeed go farther 
than to prevent interference with each other's labors among the 
American and British missionaries, and the setting up of "altar 
against altar" in the same city, town, or village; but knowing that 
circumstances of irritation exist, and that too near a proximity 
might, through the infirmity of human nature, lead to a violation 
of that union which the Conference has deemed a matter of 'para- 
mount importance to maintain, we have thought it best to adopt a 
geographical division of the labor of each, and that the Upper 
Province should be left to the American brethren, and the Lower 
to you. The reasons for this are: 

1. That the Upper Province is so adequately supplied by the 
American Conference as not to present that pressing case of neces- 
sity which will justify our expending our funds upon it. 

A transfer of Societies and places of preaching will of course 
follow. Our Societies in Upper Canada are to be put under the 
care of the American brethren; theirs in the Lower Province un- 
der yours. 

Peel that you are one with your American brethren, embarked 
in the same great cause, and eminently of the same religious fam- 
ily, and the little difficulties of arrangement will be easily sur- 
mounted; and if any warm spirits (which is probable) rise up to 
trouble you, remember that you are to act upon the great principle 
sanctioned by the Conference, and not upon local prejudices. The 
same advices, Mr. Emory has pledged himself, shall be given to 
the American preachers, and you will each endeavor to transfer 
the same spirit into the Societies respectively. When the preach- 
ers recognize each other as brethren, the people will naturally fall 
under the influence of the same feeljng. 

I pass now to another instance of division in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The arrangement just detailed was not satisfactory to 
all the Canada Methodists, and there followed, in a few 
years, the separation of Upper Canada into an inde- 
pendent jurisdiction first, and eventually the absorption 
of a large proportion of the membership into the Wes- 
leyan Connection. It has been denied that this second 
division of Episcopal Methodism can be pleaded as a 
precedent for that of 1844. Here I join issue. 

Dr. Elliott gives what he holds to be the differentia 



162 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

in the two cases. I will examine such of the points as 
are pertinent to the question of the right of a General 
Conference to "indirectly authorize" a division of the 
Church. He says: 

The General Conference of 1828 decided that they had no power 
to divide the Methodist Episcopal Church; and should the Canada 
Conference separate or secede, she must do it on her own responsi- 
bility — without authority from the General Conference for so 
doing. 

I will try the truth of this statement by facts. Let 
us see what the General Conference of 1828 did really 
say and do. As in 1844, so then, it was asserted that 
the General Conference had not power directly to divide 
the Church; but it did, nevertheless, "pass an act" 
which "indirectly" — if not directly, indeed — "author- 
ized and sanctioned a division of the Church." This 
act is found in Volume I. of the Journal of the General 
Conference, pp. 406, 407. It reads : 

Resolved, by the Delegates, etc., . . . That whereas, the juris- 
diction of the Methodist Episcopal Church, etc., . . . has 
heretofore extended over the ministers and members in connection 
with said Church in the Province of Upper Canada by mutual 
agreement, and by the desire and consent of the brethren in the 
said Province [what else could have been said of the members, etc., 
in the South?]; and whereas, this General Conference is satisfacto- 
rily assured that our brethren in the said Province, under peculiar 
and pressing circumstances, do now desire to form themselves into 
a distinct Methodist Episcopal Church, in friendly relation with 
the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States [so all but 
two thousand seven hundred and thirty-five, out of about five 
hundred thousand, Methodists said in 1848 — sending a fraternal 
messenger to show the desire of fraternity]; therefore, be it re- 
solved, by, etc.: 

1. If the Annual Conference in Upper Canada . . . shall 
definitely determine on this course [the Plan of 1844 said: "Should 
the Annual Conferences in the slave-holding States find it neces- 
sary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical Connection"], and elect a 
General Superintendent, etc., . . . this Conference does here- 
by authorize any one or more of the General Superintendents of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church ... to ordain such Superin- 
tendent, etc. [with a proviso that said Canada Bishop should never 
exercise any jurisdiction whatever in the United States — equiva- 
lent to the designation of a "boundary" line in the act of 1844. 
What would be thought of the honor of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church should it now, after this compact, partition Canada out 
into Conferences, and expend a large sum in sending missionaries 
there?] 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 163 

2. The British Conference is earnestly and affectionately desired 
to continue with that branch of Episcopal Methodism the compact 
of 1820, restricting its own operations to Lower Canada. 

3. Books and periodicals were to be furnished to the Canada 
brethren on same terms as to preachers in the States; and the Book 
Agents were to divide to Canada an equal proportion of the 
annual dividend to the Conferences so long as its patronage con- 
tinued. 

If this does not "authorize, and sanction," and pro- 
vide for a division of the Church — whether "directly" 
or "indirectly" is immaterial — the Canada brethren to 
decide on its necessity, quite as fully as the Plan of 1844 
provides for a like division — the Southern Conferences 
to decide as to its necessity, then words have no mean- 
ing. So difference number one is scattered to the 
winds. 

Dr. Elliott says, also, that in 1828 the Societies in 
Upper Canada separated themselves from the jurisdic- 
tion of the General Conference, and that body acqui- 
esced, and authorized its Bishops to ordain for them a 
Bishop. This puts the facts in a false light, as the res- 
olution above quoted shows. It was passed May 21, 
1828, by 108 yeas to 22 nays; but the separation did 
not take place till the following session of the Canada 
Conference, held in October, 1828, by Bishop Hedding. 

After the usual Conference-business had all been transacted, 
resolutions were introduced and adopted by the body declaring 
their ecclesiastical connection with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, etc., dissolved, and organizing themselves into a separate 
and independent Church. Bishop Hedding then, after congratu- 
lating them on their prosperity, and upon the amicable attainment 
of this result, vacated the chair, and the Canada Conference be- 
came the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada. {Life of Hed- 
ding, p. 365.] 

In view of all these facts, how could the Conference 
of 1848 declare that there existed "no power" in the 
Conference of 1844 "to pass any act which either di- 
rectly or indirectly authorizes or sanctions a division 
of the Church?" Who authorized Bishop Hedding to 
preside over this separation? Why did he not inter- 
•pose his official authority to stay this rupture? Be- 
cause the Church was divided by the "sanction" of 
the G-eneral Conference, given in advance. 



164 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

But Dr. Elliott gives another difference, namely: 
"That the connection between the Societies in Canada 
—at least from 1816 to 1818 [1828?]— was matter of 
mutual consent; and, consequently, it could be dis- 
solved by either party without schism." 

If there is not an omission here — "the connection 
between the Societies in Canada [and the Methodist 
Episcopal Church]," and a misprint of 1818 for 1828 — 
I cannot fathom this argument. But in 1828 there was 
much made of an hypothetical "mutual consent" be- 
tween the Church and the Canada Societies, and the 
subject demands some attention. 

In 1824 "a petition was presented from a portion of 
the preachers in Upper Canada, asking to be set off as 
an independent Conference, with the privilege of elect- 
ing a Bishop to reside among them and superintend 
their affairs." {Bangs' 's History, vol. iii., p. 277.) This 
was not granted, but the province was erected into a 
separate Annual Conference — it having been heretofore 
included in other Conferences in the States — and a cir- 
cular letter was addressed to the preachers and mem- 
bers there, "expressive of our zeal for their prosperity, 
and urging the importance of their maintaining union 
among themselves." Dr. Bangs says: 

These measures were by no means satisfactory to those in Upper 
Canada who were desirous of having a separate and independent 
Church-organization in that Province. Accordingly, on the re- 
turn of the Delegates to the General Conference, a spirit of dissat- 
isfaction was widely diffused, the local preachers were convened, a 
Conference was organized, and a declaration of grievances, rights, 
and future mode of operations, published and circulated. All this 
took place before the Canada Annual Conference assembled. On 
its assembling, however, Bishops George and Hedding being 
present, mutual explanations being made and pledges given by the 
Bishops to sanction measures for a separate organization in Canada 
hereafter, peace was measurably restored, and all things went on 
as heretofore. (Pp. 278, 279.) 

This is the nearest approach to a "mutual compact" 
I can find from 1816 down, and that was an agreement 
that if the Canada brethren would be quiet and con- 
tent for the present the Bishops would promote their' 
wish for an independent organization. 

Again: In 1828 more petitions came to the General 



The Disruption oe the M. E. Church. 165 

Conference asking for such organization in Canada. 
The committee to whom they were referred reported 
that the Conference "had no right to set off the breth- 
ren in Upper Canada as an independent body." This 
view prevailed — in effect the dictum of 1848, thus far, 
that the Conference has no power directly to effectuate a 
division of the Church. But a happy thought was 
fallen upon; and it was embraced by the Conference, 
which proceeded to "authorize and sanction" a divis- 
ion pretty much as the Conference of 1844 did the same 
thing for the South; and it passed the resolutions we 
have cited, under which Bishop Hedding helped to 
consummate the division. The argument that led them 
through this strait was : 

The preachers who went to Canada from the United States went, 
in the first instance, as missionaries; and ever afterward, whenever 
additional help was needed, Bishop Asbury and his successors 
asked for volunteers, not claiming the right to send them in the 
same authoritative manner in which they were sent to the different 
parts of the United States; hence it follows that the compact be- 
tween us and our brethren in Canada was altogether of a voluntary 
character — we had offered them our services, and they had accepted 
them — and, therefore, as they were no longer willing to receive or 
accept of our labors and superintendence, they had a perfect right 
to request us to withdraw our services, and we the same right to 
withhold them. [Bangs, vol. iii., p. 391.) 

Grant the premise true — that the preachers sent to 
Canada were volunteers — the conclusion is a non sequi- 
tur. The compact — if any — was not with the Canada 
Methodists, but with the American preachers, that they 
should not be sent, without their consent, outside the 
United States. Hence the call for volunteers to go to 
a foreign land. Adhesion to this compact would have 
been, permission to these volunteers to return perma- 
nently, not the setting of them off — a sort of per- 
petual banishment — into a separate jurisdiction. It 
passes comprehension how a compact could be formed 
in these circumstances between the Conference and the 
ministry, or membership, in Canada. The first preachers 
had gone there, it is said, because the people were 
willing to receive their labors, and the superintend- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church; but just so 
other preachers had "first" come into the South, and 



166 The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 

they, too, had been "received and accepted." If, then, 
this fact of acceptance constituted a "compact" be- 
tween the Conference and the Canada Societies, which 
gave them a "perfect right to request a withdrawal of 
the services" of the Conference, and gave it "the same 
right to withhold them," a like fact gave quite as good 
a right to the half million of Methodists in the South 
to request, and to the General Conference to grant, a 
withdrawal of its jurisdiction. This the Southern 
Methodists did, prior to 1848; but then the argument 
had been forgotten. 

After this exposition, it seems hardly needful to ask 
if the premise of this argument be true or false. It 
can be shown that Methodism worked its way into 
Canada very much as it came into America, and ex- 
tended from a few centers in every direction. First, a 
stray Methodist or two settles here or there; then, an 
itinerant preacher falls in among them, gathers the 
people and preaches to them; he forms a class; they 
ask him to come again; send word, oral or written, to 
the Bishop at Conference that they want a preacher 
sent them — will support one; and, if the work is new 
and distant, and particularly difficult, the Bishop asks 
for volunteers, and he sends thither some, or all, who 
offer. Thus, in 1789, w^hen Mr. Wesley asked, "Who 
is willing to go to America?" Boardman and Pilmore 
volunteered. The first sentence in Asbury's Journal 
tells us that w T hen, in 1771, "it was proposed that some 
preachers go to America, I spoke my mind, and made 
offer of myself." It was thus that William Losee 
passed over from his circuit in Northern New York in 
1790 to see his kindred in Canada, preached a few 
times, won the hearts of the people, carried to the 
next New York Conference a petition for a preacher, 
"offered to be the first preacher in those Northern 
climes, and was sent by Bishop Asbury, in 1791, with 
instructions to form a circuit." (Stevens's History, vol. 
ii., p. 397.) In 1792 Dr. Dunham was sent as his col- 
league; "Methodism was now completely organized in 
Upper Canada, with circuits, classes, Societies, and all 
other essentials of a Church, under the General Con- 
ference, and the episcopal administration of Asbury." 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 167 

When this had been done the Methodist Discipline 
contained the only terms of union — the only "mutual 
compact" — and this was the same for all Episcopal 
Methodists, whether in the United States or in Can- 
ada. And because it was known that Bishop Asbury 
sent only those who would volunteer to this distant 
work, the people, fearing that some would hesitate to 
return when they went away to Conference, '-offered 
them lands," to induce them to stay and to secure 
them compensation. 

But where, in the introduction of Methodism into 
Canada, do we find any more of a "compact" between 
the members there and the General Conference than 
existed between the American Societies and Mr. "Wes- 
ley, when he sent volunteers to preach and administer 
discipline among them? Or who, that has read Meth- 
odist history, does not know that circuits, and districts, 
and entire Conferences, in the outlying regions of our 
country, have begun and grown up, in greater or less 
measure, under this volunteer system? Yet there was 
no "mutual compact" here. It would be just as wise 
to say that there is a compact between the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and its Converts in India and China, 
as to say it existed in the Canada case; but who dreams 
that to these belong any rights not assured in that 
Discipline which gives and limits rights of members 
and Conferences alike to all Episcopal Methodists, at 
home or abroad? 

Nor could Mr. Asbury have known any thing of this 
"mutual compact" when he wrote the letter to Mr. 
Benson, quoted above; and if he knew not of it, there 
was none. 

The conclusion is that the Canada Societies stood in 
like relation with all other Societies to the General 
Conference — that if there was a compact in this case 
with them, so is there one in all other cases — so was 
there one with Southern and South-western Method- 
ists ; and, therefore, on the compact principle, the South 
had just such a right to expect an authorization and 
sanction of its erecting itself into an independent ju- 
risdiction as was allowed in this concession of rights 
to the Canada Methodists. 



168 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

Thus it appears that the Conference of 1848 was par- 
ticularly oblivious of Methodist history when it uttered 
its dictum that the Conference of 1844 had "no power 
to pass any act that either directly or indirectly effect- 
uates, authorizes, or sanctions a division of the Church." 
The G-eneral Conference had heretofore "directly effect- 
uated " one division, without asking the consent of the 
membership in Lower Canada; and it had "indirectly," 
if not "directly, authorized and sanctioned" a division 
in Upper Canada, which was "effectuated" under the 
administration of one of its Bishops, acting by author- 
ity, within the scope of his legitimate powers. 

And there is no better reason than this I have set 
aside, on the ground of contradicting precedents, given 
for that celebrated "Declaration" of 1848, wherein the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
repudiated the "mutual compact" of 1844 with the 
Church, South, and declared it "null and void;" and I 
leave it to the reader to say, after reading this and the 
preceding chapter, if that repudiation itself is not " null 
and void." 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 169 



I CHAPTER XII. 

THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE SUBJECT. 

THUS far I have treated of the Plan of Separation 
as an agreement, or covenant, between fair-minded 
Christian men, who, in discharge of their trust for the 
Church, and considering the irreconcilable differences 
in its two sections, bound themselves by mutual en- 
gagements, considering more the moral than the legal 
force of the obligations they interchanged. Having 
treated of the moral, I come now to consider the legal, 
aspects of the Plan of Separation. 

These, indeed, have been settled by the highest tri- 
bunal of the nation; but, in this controversy, the 
Church, South, has to deal with some who have no 
more respect for a decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States than they have for the credit for 
accuracy of their own official records, when either 
does not sustain their own opinions. In the Meth- 
odist Quarterly Review, April, 1870, Dr. D. A. Whedon 
says: 

As secular law, whether expounded or manufactured [?] by that 
court, requiring the division of the property, we obeyed the decis- 
ion; but as deciding for us a moral or ecclesiastical question, it has 
no more value or force than the opinion of any other equally able 
lawyers. That same court, by the mouth of Eoger Taney, a name 
of evil omen in judicial history, decided that no negro was a citizen, 
or possessed any rights which any man is bound to respect. . . . The 
decision against us was made when slavery was in the height of its 
power — when Presidents, and Congress, and courts were humble 
tools of slavery — and when political parties were bowing in pros- 
tration before the same power. . . . But could that case but come 
before the Supreme Court of to-day, what Southerner dreams that 
8 



170 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

the action of the General Conference (1844) would be pronounced 
a division of the Church?*" 

* Judge Leavitt, of the Circuit Court of Ohio, pronouncing a decision in favor 
of the Slethodist Episcopal Church in the case carried up to the Supreme 
Court, exhibits a diffidence as to the unquestionable accuracy of his judgment 
not in the least shared by Dr. Whedon as to his own. His Honor said: "Al- 
though the conclusions to which I have, arrived have been satisfactory to my- 
self, 1 experience the highest gratification from the reflection that, if I have 
misconceived the points arising in the case, and have been led to wrong re- 
sults, my errors will be corrected by that high tribunal to which the rights of 
these parties will, without doubt, be subjnitted for final adjudication." "Just 
sentiments," says Dr. Elliott; "and they may furnish a caution to the relig- 
ious press, as well as an example of conduct worthy of imitation." I may 
add: A caution not heeded, an example not followed, by those who thus as- 
perse the whole Bench of Supreme Justices. Farther: the untrustworthiness 
of Dr. W., as a historian, is shown by his retailing the slander against Chief- 
justice Taney, who did not assert as his own opinion what is attributed to him 
in the passage italicized in the text. A reference to the " Dred Scott" decision 
would have convinced him that, by perverting language, he had aspersed six 
out of eight of the most eminent judges in our land ; besides uttering the un- 
worthy insinuation that those now on the bench would decide the case, if again 
before them, not on its merits, but in view of their general political opinions. 
Chief-justice Taney was not giving his own opinion, Dut that of a previous age. 
He was solving the question historically as to the status of the African among 
civilized men when the Declaration of Independence was written, to learn 
whether the negro was' included in the "all men" there declared "equal." 
He argued from the treatment that Africans everywhere received, and quoted 
largely from New England statutes, to prove that the founders of the Republic 
could not, in idea, have extended this epithet to the negro. Giving the opin- 
ions of a former age, all history attests that he gave them correctly. He was 
interpreting a certain dictum as it was understood by those who uttered it — 
not giving his opinion as to its correctness; and while he furnishes ample 
historical proof that the opinion falsely attributed to himself prevailed in 1776, 
he says: " If they [the words of the Declaration of Independence] were used 
in a similar instrument at this day, they would be considered" to embrace 
"the whole human family." A few extracts from the decision will establish 
the truth of this position. He says : " It becomes necessary to determine who 
were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted ; and, 
in order to do this, we must recur to the governments and institutions of 
the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new 
sovereignties — . . , inquire who were recognized, at that time, as the peo- 
ple, or citizens, of a State, . . . and who declared their independence and 
assumed the powers of government to defend their rights by torce of arms. 
In the opinion of the court the legislation and histories'of the times, and the 
language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class 
of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether 
they had become free or not, were there acknowledged as a part of the people, 
or intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable in- 
strument. It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in re- 
lation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened 
portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and 
when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the 
public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to 
be mistaken. They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as be- 
ings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, 
either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which 
the white man was bound to respect [had they not been so regarded?] ;' and that 
the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He 
was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and 
traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion loan at that time 
fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an 
axiom in morals, as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or 
supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in so- 
ciety daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in 
matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 171 

This treatment of a decision which gave legal force 
to the instrument whereby Southern Methodism holds 
all its Church-property owned prior to 1844 raises the 
question whether or not this is a general sentiment in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. It certainly has 
been hinted many times that this question might yet 
again reach the Supreme Court in some form. A 
quotation or two from official organs will show my 
meaning: 

The authorities of the Methodist Episcopal Church have valid 
title to the Church-property (meeting-houses and parsonages). None 
of these have been before the Supreme Court at "Washington. If 
ever brought before that tribunal, we have no doubt that the final 
decision will be in our favor. When the secession occurred there 
were churches and parsonages all over the South built by money 
given by that (Methodist Episcopal) Church for that purpose, and 
to be held by that Church forever. These churches were claimed 
by those who hold them without authority, by no legal or moral 
right. All such property belongs in law and equity to the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, "in certain cases "duty may lie in the di- 
rection of taking that which is our own." [Methodist Advocate, 
Atlanta, April, 1869.) 

And the Virginia Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
in 1870 — saying that she "has, at sundry times, been displaced from 
her churches and real estate in Virginia, in many places where the 
title to that property should be claimed at once'' — declares, ""We 
owe it to ourselves, our people, and the principles we advocate, to 
make every legal and righteous effort to recover our Church-prop- 
erty," and then instructs the Presiding Elders to employ counsel. 

Again : We caution our Southern friends not to be too sure of 
the legal validity of the "Plan of Separation." Another appeal to 
the Supreme Court of the United States may not fare so well as the 
first did. It is clear to every Northern Methodist that the "Plan" 
was not fairly valid without the consent of three-fourths of the mem- 
bers of the Annual Conferences. The two courts of first instance, 
in New York and Cincinnati, decided the question in precisely op- 
posite ways; on appeal, the case was decided against us by a Su- 
preme Court of decided Southern leanings. That court has been 
known to reverse its decisions, and in the present altered temper 
of the times might do so again. Overmuch confidence in the Plan 
of Separation mav prove to be disastrous to Southern Methodism. 
{New York Methodist— not official— July 18, 1874.) 

"When the last-named paper at one time conceded 
the force of the Plan of Separation, a preacher from 

this opinion. And in no nation was this opinion more firmly fixed, or more 
uniformly acted upon, than by the. English Government and English people," 
etc. Mr. Wesley confirms this opinion in Works, vol. vii., p. 237. 



172 The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 

the "border" wrote at once of the decision of the 
court : 

It is a decision that the loyal statesmen and jurists of the South, 
who are struggling to reconstruct the country, look upon with anger, 
and a firm resolve to rip it up, if the legislative body of the coun- 
try will let us into the courts of the United States. 

Br. Curry said, in the Christian Advocate and Journal, 
of the Methodist's indorsement of the decision of the 
Supreme Court, that "every true Methodist in the 
country indignantly protests" against it. 

Are these only sporadic utterances? or do such sen- 
timents prevail in the Methodist Episcopal Church? 
These writers are correct, and the members of the 
Church, South, must be rated as only legalized robbers, 
if the decision of the Supreme Court be wrong, and 
the Conference decision of 1848 be right; and, with 
these insinuations and threats floating around, they 
have no means of knowing by which decision the 
Methodist Episcopal Church intends to shape her 
future course. This uncertainty makes the most se- 
rious of the "serious difficulties" between the two 
Churches; for, unless this point is settled, this genera- 
tion may leave a heritage of annoyance and litigation, 
and, if the utterances quoted are j)rophetic, of loss to 
our descendants.* 

*Even while I write there is litigation. In June, 1874, a decision in favor of 
the Church, South, was given in the Chancery Court at Jonesboro, Tennessee, 
for camp-ground and parsonage property, held since 1811. It came to the 
Church, South, by the Plan ; in 1865 was turned over by trustees, who had gone 
to the Methodist Episcopal Church, to that body; was claimed by the former 
Church under the Plan, and the decision was in its favor. But the case is not 
permitted to rest there. An appeal has been taken by the trustees of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church to the Supreme Court of the State, and they sig- 
nify their intention, if they lose in that court, if possible, to carry the case to 
the Supreme Court of the United States. [Since this was written the State 
Supreme Court has decided this case, reaffirming the decision of the lower 
court on the basis of the Plan. I am not advised whether or not the case has 
been carried farther.] And there must be litigation. The Methodist has kindly, 
and no doubt sincerely, said " that the property rights acquired by them (the 
Church, South) under the Plan of Separation are to remain undisturbed;" but 
what " property rights " could have been acquired under an illegitimate Plan ? 
None. The Methodist Episcopal Church says: " Our General Conference did 
wrong, in 1844, in surrendering to you a large amount of property which the 
Church held in trust for its membership, and we repudiate its act as null and void ;" 
and yet kindly-disposed members of the Church say: "You may keep what 
the Conference then gave you.'" Is not this a violation of trust? "Has any in- 
dividual, any number of individuals, however well disposed, a right to surren- 
der a trust property which the General Conference of 1844 had no right to 
surrender? This seems to us the light in which this matter is to be viewed. 
It is not a question of love, or fellowship, or fraternity, but one of rights in 
trust. There is no telling how often, or for how many years, such property 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 173 

It is proper, in view of the differences of opinion as 
to the legitimate powers of the General Conference, to 
examine into the legal aspects of the question, and to 
try to find some common ground of opinion where 
both parties may meet for unprejudiced discussion — 
some ground not tainted by " slaveocracy." 

I. Legally, then, the Plan of Separation was a com- 
pact. This is denied by Dr. Whedon in the article re- 
ferred to above, he confining the term, however, to one 
only of its meanings — an international treaty. A few 
citations will settle the question : 

"Contract" includes every description of agreement or obligation 
whereby one party becomes bound to another to . . . perform 
or omit to do a certain act . . . an agreement between two or 
more persons concerning some thing to be done, whereby both par- 
ties are bound to each other, or one is bound to the other. Denned 
also to be a compact between two or more persons. (Bouvier's Law 
Dictionary, under word. See, also, Parsons on Contracts, pp. 6, 7; 
Kents Commentaries, vol. ii., pp. 449, 463-5.) Mutual consent is 
requisite to the creation of a contract; and it becomes binding when 
a proposition is made on one side and accepted on the other. [lb. 
p. 476.) "Compact" — an agreement, or contract, usually of the more 
formal or solemn kind. [BurrelVs Law Dictionary.) Agreement, 
contract, compact, nearly synonyms, and used interchangeably. 
(See Dictionaries.) 

The parties to this agreement, contract, compact, 
were the Delegates of all the Conferences, acting in 
General Conference capacity, on the one hand, and the 
Delegates of the Conferences in the slave-holding States 
on the other. 

There was one "condition precedent"* which must 
be fulfilled, or the contract would have been a nullity. 
If the latter party should find it necessary to unite in 
a distinct ecclesiastical Connection, then the other 
party would acquit of blame all preachers adhering to 
either organization, and release to the Church, South, 
all claim upon its property in that section, with the 
farther "conditional stipulation" that if all the Con- 
questions may come up wherever the Methodist Episcopal Church has spread 
over the South, and can proselyte a few mem hers and office-bearers, as in the 
Tennessee case. This may ensue until that Church, by its General Conference, 
formally acknowledges the validity of the division of trust, in 1814, between two 
jurisdictions. 

-"Condition precedent "—an act essential to be performed by one party, 
prior to any obligation attaching upon any other party, to do or perform an- 
other given act. 



174 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

ferences concurred with the General Conference in 
changing the Sixth Restrictive Article, the Church 
would also divide the Book Concern property. 

There was also a stipulation without force until the 
separation was consummated and a dividing line be- 
came necessary. It was a " condition dependent," and 
of mutual obligation — viz.: that when actual division 
should produce a border territory, both parties would 
"observe" a given "rule" respecting the partition 
line. 

It was claimed by the General Conference, in 1848, 
that the infraction of this "rule" by the South gave it 
warrant to declare the contract "null and void."* 

I join issue here. Owing to variant construction of 
the "rule" by the Bishops on either side, differences 
had arisen. The remedy for "border" troubles grow- 
ing out of these interpretations lay in the courts where 
the aggrieved parties resided, and this remedy was 
sought in several instances. To declare the entire 
contract void for the infraction of a dependent condi- 
tion, when the condition upon which it depended had 
been kept in good faith, whereby the relation of par- 
ties and aspect of affairs had been wholly changed, 
was a violation of every rule of equity. One of the 
parties to a contract cannot declare it "null and void," 
unless both parties are placed in statu quo. Here are 
authorities : 

A contract cannot in general he rescinded by one party unless 
both parties can be placed in the same situation, and can stand 
upon the same terms as existed when the contract was made. It 
would be unjust to destroy a contract in toto where one party has 
derived a partial benefit by part performance of the agreement. 
(Chitty on Contracts, p. 276.) 

In order to rescind a contract, and treat it as wholly determined, 
both parties must be placed in the same situation as they were be- 
fore the contract was made. (Comyn on Contracts, p. 50. See Ad- 
dison on Contracts, p. 1072.) 

■■'Kent's Commentary on Law of Nations was quoted to prove it, and Dr. Whe- 
don, in the Methodist Quarterly Revieiv, has borrowed the idea. The case cited 
is the "annihilation," in 1798, by the United States Government of the treaty 
with France. Yet, in the same connection. Chancellor Kent says: " The vio- 
lation of one article of a treaty is a violation of the whole treaty; for all the 
articles are dependent on each other; and a violation of any single article over- 
throws the whole treaty, if the misused party elect so to consider it." But 
this reason for the decision in the French treaty case does not hold here, as I 
show that the articles are not " all dependent on each other." 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 175 

It was impossible to restore the status quo in this 
case. The Southern jurisdiction had been organized 
in strict accordance with the compact, one General 
Conference had been held, officials elected, Bishoi)s or- 
dained, boundaries fixed, with here and there only a 
"border " dispute — all before the Plan was pronounced 
"null and void." The status quo could have been re- 
stored only by undoing all this, and reversing the de- 
cisions of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and sending them back to preside in the 
Southern Conferences. It was not possible to restore 
the status quo, and the General Conference of 1848 did 
not attempt it; and by every principle of law — to say 
nothing of good morals — their repudiation of the Plan 
is itself "null and void." It had a legal remedy 
against any infractions of the Plan by the South. The 
course adopted was neither legal nor a remedy. 

II. I come now to examine that "Declaration" of 
1848 — that the General Conference had no right to ef- 
fectuate, or authorize, or sanction a division of the 
Church — and I shall show, by authority the Methodist 
Episcopal Church cannot reject, that the Conference 
of 1844 had the power, and used it. 

Everybody grants that the General Conference was 
"created" by a company of Methodist elders, meeting 
from time to time at their own option. An extract 
from the Report of the Committee on Organization, at 
the Louisville Convention, throws some historical light 
on the subject that will not be controverted: 

"We do nothing but what we are expressly authorized to do by the 
supreme, or rather highest, legislative power of the Church* "Would 
the Church authorize us to do wrong? The division relates only to 
the power of general jurisdiction, which it is not proposed to de- 
stroy, or reduce, but simply to invest it in two great organs of 
Church action and control, instead of in one as at present. Such 
a change in the present system of general control cannot disturb 
the moral unity of the Church, for it is strictly an agreed modifi- 
cation of General Conference jurisdiction; and such an agreement 
and consent of parties must preclude the idea of disunion. In view 
of what is the alleged disunion predicated? Is the purpose and act 
of becoming a separate organization proof of disunion, or want of 
proper Church unity? This cannot be urged with any show of con- 
sistency, inasmuch as the "several Annual Conferences, in General 
Conference assembled" — that is to say, the Church, through its own 



176 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

constitutional organ of action on all subjects involving the power 
of legislation — not only agreed to the separate organization, South, 
but made full constitutional provision for carrying it into effect. It 
is separation by consent of parties under the highest authority of 
the Church. Is it intended that the modal unity of the Church 
depends upon the modal uniformity of the jurisdiction in question? 
If this be so, the Methodist Episcopal Church has lost its unity at 
several different times. The general jurisdiction of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church has undergone modifications at several different 
times, not less vital, if not greatly more so, than the one now pro- 
posed. The high conventional powers, of which we are so often re- 
minded, exercised in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, were in the hands of a Conference of unordained lay preach- 
ers, under the sole superintendence of ah appointee of Mr. "Wesley. 
This was the first General Conference type and original form of 
the jurisdiction in question. The jurisdictional power now pro- 
posed [possessed?] by the General Conference was for years exer- 
cised by small Annual Conferences, without any defined boundaries, 
and acting separately on all measures proposed for their determi- 
nation. [And it might have been added that, after the organizing 
Christmas Conference of 1784, these Annual Conferences passed 
upon, altered, and even suspended, regulations of that General Con- 
ference.] This general power of jurisdiction next passed into the 
hands of the "Bishops' Council," consisting of some ten persons, 
where it remained for a term of years. Next it passed into the 
hands of the whole itinerant ministry in full connection, and was 
exercised by them, in collective action, as a General Conference of 
the whole body, met together at the same time. The power was 
afterward vested [by them] in the whole body of traveling elders, 
and from thence finally passed into the hands of Delegates, elected 
by the Annual Conferences, to meet and act quadrennially as a 
General Conference, under constitutional restrictions and limita- 
tions. Here are several successive reorganizations of General Con- 
ference jurisdiction, each involving a much more material change 
than that contemplated in the General Conference Plan, by author- 
ity of which this Convention is about to erect sixteen Annual Con- 
ferences in the slave-holding States into a separate organization. 
We change no principle in the existing theory of General Confe - 
ence jurisdiction. We distinctly recognize the jurisdiction of a 
Delegated General Conference, receiving its appointment and au- 
thority from the whole constituency of Annual Conferences. [That 
constituency being represented in the Conference of 1844 — which 
authorized this separate organization.] 

Begging the reader to keep this history in mind, I 
take the ground that the right of the General Confer- 
ence to "authorize and sanction a division of the 
Church" is founded in the same "constitutional" pre- 
rogatives as were claimed for the Conference to vindi- 
cate its action on the Finley Eesolution. I sustain my 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 177 

proposition by quoting from Dr. Hamline, and lie is, I 
suppose, good authority with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. 

Dr. Haniline's authority is none the less valuable be- 
cause he states the principle incidentally, as a well- 
known and acknowledged postulate, requiring neither 
specific statement nor proof. He is making an argu- 
ment on the constitutional power of the General Con- 
ference to deal, directly and without prevenient legisla- 
tion as to episcopal improprieties, etc., with Bishop 
Andrew — claiming that that body has plenary power, 
legislative, judicial, and executive — which last, by the 
way, it executed in this case by making Bishop A. him- 
self its executive officer — asking him to disrobe himself 
— a sort of ecclesiastical hari-kari* 

I quote some of Dr. Haniline's arguments: 

In Church and in State there must always be some ultimate or 
supreme authority, and the exercise of it must be independent, so 
far as systematic responsibility is concerned. . . . The General 
Conference, adjunct in certain exigences with the Annual Confer- 
ences, is the ultimate depository of power in the Church. . . . 
I shall argue our authority to depose a Bishop summarily . . . 
from the relations of the General Conference to the Church and to 
the Episcopacy. 

"This Conference, adjunct (but rarely) with the Annual Confer- 
ences, is supreme: Its supremacy is universal. It has legislative, 
judicial, and executive supremacy. . . . Under self-assumed re- 
strictions, which are now of constitutional force and virtue (espe- 
cially as they originated in a General Conference composed not of 
Delegates, but of traveling preachers), it can make rules of every 
sort for the government of the Church. The restrictions are few 
and simple. They embrace (1) our Articles of Eeligion, (2) the ratio 
of representation, (3) the perpetuity of Episcopacy and the Gen- 
eral Superintendency, (4) the General Rules, (5) trial by commit- 
tee and appeal, and (6) the avails of the Book Concern. Beyond 
these slender restrictions its legislation is legitimate and conclu- 
sive; and within them it is so, if the members of the Annual Con- 
ferences are consenting." Again: ". . . so our Constitution says 
to this General Conference, Under such and such restrictions, you 
are commissioned with full powers to make rules and regulations 
for cultivating the fields of Methodism." And again: "Our Con- 
stitution leaves all the powers of the three great departments of 
government ... in this General Conference. . . . The grant 
of power is to us in mass. . . . "Whatever this General Confer- 

* Or is it hari-karu, that act by which a convicted Japanese official, condemned 
to death, executes the sentence by disemboweling himself? 

8* 



178 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

ence can constitutionally do, it can do without first resolving that 
it has power to do it. . . . I have argued that the Conference 
has power, from the grant of the Constitution — which is a catholic 
grant, embracing all but a few enumerated restrictions — to try a 
Bishop for crime and depose him summarily for improper con- 
duct." And again, in reply to Dr. Smith: "The administrative 
powers of this Conference are supreme — which means that, while 
acting within the constitutional limits, its decisions are final and 
all-controlling." . . . And he argues that if the Conference 
wanted to restrict its power in any case, not covered by the con- 
stitutional restrictions, it could call on the Annual Conferences to 
aid it in assuming such a restriction — and the inference is that, 
where it has not asked such a restriction on its power, it intends to 
hold it and exercise it when necessary. [That is, it would seem, it 
cannot limit its own power beyond the limit the restrictions put upon 
it, without the sanction of the Conferences.] 

Now, compare these utterances with a few in Judge 
Leavitt's decision in the Ohio case. He says : 

The question is not whether there does or does not exist in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church a power to destroy its organization, 
and entirely reconstruct its Discipline, but whether the former 
right exists in the General Conference. The power of change — 
of destruction itself — exists somewhere; but if not specially dele- 
gated [which it was u 'm mass," Dr. H. says], it remains with those 
who are the original depositaries of all power. . . . Prior to 1808 
the General Conference was essentially a democracy, in which the 
masses of preachers met together to transact their business. By 
the Constitution adopted in 1808, the General Conference has con- 
stituents to whom they [sic~\ are answerable, and they are limited 
in their powers by express constitutional restrictions. . . . This 
court has no hesitancy in avowing that the power of division would 
belong to the body of the traveling ministry, assembled en masse, in 
a constitutional capacity. 

Now, let us compare the opinions of these two high 
authorities in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Judge 
Leavitt holds that the preachers en masse could divide 
the Church, "but the Gi-eneral Conference, whose pow- 
ers are limited by express constitutional restrictions, 
could not do it" — yet he does not claim that these re- 
strictions inhibit a division of the Church. Dr. Ham- 
line holds that the "traveling preachers" — Judge L.'s 
"traveling ministry en masse" — originated the Consti- 
tution, with its restrictions, "few and simple," and 
that ''beyond these slender restrictions its legislative 
power is legitimate and conclusive" — "supreme" — 
that it is " commissioned with 'full powers to make 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 179 

rules and regulations' for cultivating the fields of 
Methodism." 

Judge Leavitt bases his decision against the Church, 
South, not in that these Articles restrict the Confer- 
ence from dividing the Church, but in that the power 
to "make rules and regulations" does not include the 
power to divide.* 

Dr. H., as far as reported, gives no express opinion 
on this point, either pro or con, and we must infer his 
belief from his acts and speeches. Though personally 
opj)Osed to division, and restrained by motives of deli- 
cacy and propriety f from forwarding a movement in 
the Conference whereby it should originate division, he 
became the earnest advocate of a plan — if, indeed, he 
did not suggest it — which would consummate division, 
if the Southern Conferences so elected; and he consid- 
ered all constitutional objections to it obviated by send- 
ing to the Conferences for concurrence "that part of 
the Plan" which inaugurated a constitutional change 
in the rule restricting a disposition of the common 
funds, so as to allow a division of them with the South. 
I argue that Dr. H. — who believed that its inherent 
and non-restricted power authorized the General Con- 

* I have already hinted that Judge Leavitt took infinite pains to set aside the 
Plan of Separation as invalid, when the hypothesis that it was made depend- 
ent on the concurrent votes of the Annual Conferences would have disposed 
of it in a single sentence. He could have dismissed the matter by saying: 
" Whatever power the General Conference has, or has not, the division was 
conditioned on the change of the Restrictive Article. It was not changed — 
hence the Church was not divided" — and there would have been no necessity 
for a long discussion on the powers of the General Conference. Judge L. does 
say : " The Plan shows the condition on which the withdrawal is to be consum- 
mated, should the South consider it necessary to withdraw; and provision is made 
for future friendly relations with the new Church"— manifestly, by providing 
for a friendly division of trust property, which — the property, not the Church 
—Judge L. says could not be divided, because this " condition " failed. 

fSee Dr. Capers's statement, pages 121, 122. Dr. H. did not object to Dr. C.'s 
plan of partial division that it was unconstitutional. He said: " There were 
difficulties in the way of such a proposition. One provision was to send tkisplan 
to the Annual Conferences, but that [the sending] was unconstitutional and 
revolutionary in its character; and when it came back the General Conference 
would have no more authority than they have now." He could not have meant 
that the subject-matter of the plan was'" unconstitutional and revolutionary," 
while he was advocating a more radical plan of division than Dr. C.'s, but that 
the sending to the Conferences a regulation not contemplated by the Restrictive 
Article was so— as it was temporarily vacating their inherent powers— and use- 
lessly, too, for they, being supreme already, would not be enhanced when the 
vote of concurrence came back to them. In his passage at arms with Dr. Smith, 
he had previously taught that the Conference could not divest itself of its in- 
herent powers without the sanction of the. Annual Conferences, obtained by 
asking for additional restrictions, and if it had not done this as to any item o*f 
its power, it was because it reserved the right to exercise it " when necessary." 



180 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

ference to "depose a Bishop summarily for 'improper 
conduct'" — also believed that its power "to make 
rules and regulations" could compass even a division 
of the Conference jurisdiction, if necessary "for culti- 
vating the fields of Methodism." This being so, the 
point of difference between my two authorities is as to 
the ground covered by the terms "rules and regula- 
tions." And perhaps there would have been no differ- 
ence if Judge L., who seemed to have a vague suspicion 
that he may have "misconceived the points," had been 
as conversant as Dr. H. with the tentative efforts and 
constant changes of early Methodism in trying to es- 
tablish a satisfactory High Court. But this was not to 
be expected. 

Thus the differences — as to the Plan — between North- 
ern and Southern Methodism are narrowed down, by 
my argument, to a question of the logical extension of 
the words "rules and regulations." As Dr. Ham line 
is manifestly an advocate here for Southern opinion, 
and as this is clearly a question of "construction," 
properly cognizable by the courts, I may surely now 
claim the support of the United States Supreme Court, 
especially as Judge Leavitt modestly expressed his sat- 
isfaction in believing that the Bench of Supreme Jus- 
tices could, and would, correct any "misconception of 
points" which may have "led" him "to wrong re- 
sults."* 

*We have means of correcting Judge Leavitt, when he denies to the Gen- 
eral Conference, under its "full powers to make rules and regulations for 
our Church," whereby " to spread scriptural holiness over these lands," the 
power to divide into two jurisdictions for this purpose. In the Dred Scott 
case, Mr. Justice Curtis, of Massachusetts, gave a decision on the compass 
of these words, "rules and regulations," which shows that "full powers" 
means full powers— except where restricted, by specific act; and thus he sus- 
tains Dr. Hamline's opinion. As this eminent man cannot be suspected of 
leaning to the " slaveocracy," a few sentences from his decision may have 
weight with those who repudiate his feilow-justices. The point he is discuss- 
ing embraces a passage from the Federal Constitution, which he quotes : " The 
Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all -needful rules and regula- 
tions respecting the territory belonging to the United States;" and he says: 
" It has been urged that the words ' rules and regulations ' are not appropriate 
terms in which to convey authority to make laws for the government of the ter- 
ritory. But it must be remembered that this is a grant of power to Congress — 
necessarily, therefore, a grant of power to legislate; and, certainly, rules and 
regulations respecting a particular subject, made by the legislative power of 
a country, can be nothing but law. . . . Power . . . to make all 'need- 
ful rules and regulations ' . . . is power to pass all needful laws. . . . 
If, then, this clause does contain a power to legislate respecting the territory, 
what is the limit of that power? To this I answer, that . . . it finds limits 
in the express prohibitions on Congress not to do certain things; that in the 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 181 

And they did correct. That eminent judicial author- 
ity with a full Bench — and Judge McLean, a leading- 
Methodist, at hand to help them to avoid gross errors, 
though he did not sit in judgment on the case — that 
court sustained Judge L.'s opinion that the preachers 
en masse had power to divide the Church, and Dr. H.'s 
opinion that they had transferred all their power to 
the Delegated General Conference, except where the 
"few and simple" restrictions did not bar its action — 
which, on this point of division, they did not. The 
court says that the power which the General Confer- 
ence of 1784, composed of all the traveling preachers, 
had, to have constructed then two ecclesiastical organ- 
izations instead of one over the territory of the United 
States, remained with future Conferences similarly 

exercise of the legislative power, Congress cannot pass an* ex post facto law, or 
a bill of attainder; and so of each of the other prohibitions in the Constitu- 
tion. [That is, to apply the principle to oar case, nothing must be done in- 
hibited by the Restrictive Articles.] Besides this, the rules and regulations 
must be needful. But, undoubtedly, whether a particular rule or regulation be 
needful must be finally determined by Congress itself. Whether a law be 
needful is a legislative or political, not a judicial, question. Whatever Con- 
gress deems needful is so, under a grant of power. The Constitution declares 
that Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations ' re- 
specting the territory belonging to the United States.' The assertion is that 
though the Constitution says all without qualification, it means all except such, 
etc. It cannot be doubted that it is incumbent on those who would thus in- 
troduce an exception, not found in the language of the instrument, to exhibit 
some solid and satisfactory reasons drawn from the subject-matter, or the pur- 
poses and object of the claim — the context, or from other provisions of the 
Constitution — showing that the words employed in this clause are not to be 
understood according to their clear, plain, and natural signification. . . . 
There is nothing in the context which qualifies the grant of power. Where 
the Constitution has said all needful regulations, I must find more than theo- 
retical reasoning to induce me to say it does not mean all." Observe: Justice 
Curtis was on the bench when Jud°;e Leavitt's decision came under review, 
and at the same term he delivered this decision, and also coincided on the de- 
cision in the Church suit, for it was unanimous. [Judge McLean did not sit, 
but was present, and had made strenuous efforts to divide the property be- 
fore any decision was had in the courts. He, too, must therefore have 
thought the action of the General Conference legitimate.] This decision of 
Justice Curtis helps my case in more ways than one. The General Conference 
of 1844 had said that the "full power to make rules and regulations" author- 
ized their action on the Finley Resolution, because it was "needful"— " ex- 
pedient" was the word they used. But Justice Curtis's decision would con- 
demn this act; because, (1) if the Conference ever had the power to pass it, 
as Dr. H. said, " without first resolving that it had power to do it" (equivalent 
to making the law and applying it simultaneously), it was an eic post facto law; 
and (2) because it was, in truth, " a bill of attainder." But as to the power to 
authorize a division of the Church, since Judge Leavitt exhibited none of those 
" solid and satisfactory reasons " which Justice Curtis indicates for restricting 
the interpretation of a clause embracing " full powers to make rules and reg- 
ulations," we must claim the opinion of the latter as sustaining, by analogy, 
Dr. H.'s opinion of the constitutional power of the General Conference — es- 
pecially as the former's condition that the exercise must be "needful" was 
fully met, when the Conference of 1844 thought it necessary to enact the Plan 
of Separation. 



182 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

composed, and was n either taken away nor given up, 
when they formed a Delegated General Conference, 
which possesses the same powers as when the Confer- 
ence was constituted of the whole body of preachers — 
save what was withheld by the Eestrictive Articles, 
none of which affect the question of jurisdictional di- 
vision — so that "in every thing else that concerns the 
welfare of the Church the General Conference repre- 
sents the sovereign power the same as before" 1808. 
The court farther decides that under the resolutions 
of 1844 — the Plan — and in virtue of the power of the 
General Conference, "it was well agreed and deter- 
mined by the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America, as then existing " that in case 
the Southern Conferences "should find it necessary to 
unite in a distinct ecclesiastical Connection," certain 
specified things were to follow; that the Southern Con- 
ferences did so find, and that, by force of the power of 
the General Conference, and by virtue of the determi- 
nation of the Southern Conferences, and of their self- 
organization into a distinct ecclesiastical Connection, 
"the religious association, known as the Methodist 
Episcopal Church of the United States of America, 
was divided into two associations, or distinct Method- 
ist Episcopal Churches." (See Howard's Reports, vol. 
xvi.) 

Thus was Judge Leavitt's "construction" of the 
terms "rules and regulations" set aside, and what I 
have shown to have been Dr. Hamline's sustained. 

The court farther held—what I have fully proved — 
that the change of the Eestrictive Article was u not 
made a condition of division. That depended upon the 
decision of the Southern Conferences." And farther: 
The removal of the limitation imposed by this Article 
was not a condition of the right of the Church, South, 
to its share of the property, but was sought as a step 
taken [as Dr. H. had said] in order to enable the Gen- 
eral Conference to complete the partition of the prop- 
erty; which, however, followed, as a matter of law, a 
division of Church-organization. 

With all these facts before me, and setting in the 
forefront the dicta of Judge Leavitt and Dr. Hamlin e, 



The Disruption or the M. E. Church. 183 

using the decision of the Supreme Bench only to har- 
monize and confirm their opinions, am I not justified 
in saying that the last ecumenical General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church adjourned sine die 
on the night of the 10th of June, 1844? that the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1848 was neither that body, reas- 
sembled in due course, nor its legal successor? that 
therefore said quadrennial Conference was not a party 
to the contract embodied in the Plan of Separation? 
that consequently it had no authority to declare said 
Plan "null and void?" and that, for this and other 
reasons heretofore given, its action in the premises is 
itself "null and void?" 

Thus I have ascertained the legal relations of the 
two Methodisms. They are the coequal members into 
which the original Methodist Episcopal Church of the 
United States disparted itself, by a mutual agreement 
between irreconcilably conflicting parties in said Church 
— a partition made for the one purpose of more effect- 
ually promoting Christianity, each in the separate ter- 
ritory assigned it. 

If it be said that the Delegates in 1844 did not claim 
— rather did disclaim — the power to divide the Church, 
I answer that neither party desired to divide, and only 
accepted this conclusion of making provision for a di- 
vision, if the Southern Conferences decide on its ne- 
cessity, as a last refuge from incessant strife and greater 
calamity; hence neither was solicitous to assert and in- 
sist on this power to divide: (1) the Northern Dele- 
gates, very properly — lest a show of zeal in this di- 
rection might be imputed to a readiness to get up a 
dispute, carry the day, drive the South to the wall, and 
then make haste to j)roclaiin their authority to say, 
" Go in peace, and our section of the Church will be rid 
of an occasion of great disturbance;" (2) the Southern 
Delegates, very naturally — for, stunned as they had 
just been by the exercise of this doctrine of " supreme " 
power, it was not for them to pick up the offensive 
dogma so early and press it into the service of a total 
division, which to the last they deprecated ; and, be- 
sides, there seemed no necessity, for while all felt well- 
nigh assured that separation or division would ensue 



184 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

from their act, but few of them — either Northern or 
Southern Delegates — had any doubt that what they 
were doing was perfectly constitutional — altogether 
within their delegated powers — else they would not 
have done it; but they all disliked the very semblance 
of division, and (3) they, therefore, conjured up an in- 
nocent phantom of self-deception — they would not 
divide the Church — the abhorred word division "had 
been carefully avoided through the whole document" 
— this was to be only a "separation" — as though what 
was undivided could be separated! — the responsibility 
of which was cast by that body wholly upon the South- 
ern Conferences. Dear, good men ! They did not re- 
member, what Dr. Hamline had told them days before, 
that "nothing in their own statutes" even, much less, 
of course, obscure doubts in their own minds, "could 
deprive them of power conferred on them by the higher 
authority of the Constitution. We cannot," he said, 
"by our enactments, divest ourselves of our constitu- 
tional powers, any more than man made in G-od's im- 
age can shun the law of his being, and divest himself 
of free agency and immortality." 

And so, their inherent and inalienable powers gave 
a potency to their action beyond what they imagined, 
amid the din and confusion of the conflict. But when 
the smoke cleared up, so that they could see their whole 
work, they saw original Methodism divided "into two 
bands" — in all probability, forevermore. 



The Disruption of tiie M. E. Church. 1S5 



CHAPTER XIII. 

THE PRESENT RELATIONS OF THE TWO METHODISES. 

THE Church. South, after 1S4S. made do more over- 
tures of fraternity to its sister Church: and for 
several years that Communion gave to the former no 
token of friendly recognition. Meanwhile, the '-seri- 
ous questions and difficulties" that barred fraternity 
in ISIS had become far more serious and immeasura- 
bly more complicated. A brief statement will show 
wherein. 

Immediately after the rejection of Dr. Pierce came 
that now noted ex parte action which, in effect, de- 
clared the Church. South, the illegitimate offspring of 
schism — put upon it the brand of a •■secession" from 
the "Mother Church."' to use the proselyting cant much 
in vogue where facts are not known. This nullifica- 
tion of the Plan of Separation remains to this day the 
nucleus of the grievances the Southern Church has to 
urge against her congeneric sister. 

After that transaction followed the lawsuits, and the 
judgment of the Supreme Court reversing, in effect, 
the decision of the General Conference of 1848, and 
dividing with the South the Book Concern property. 
Since that contest has been settled, the ••border*' has 
been obliterated. In 1S60-61 the Baltimore Confer- 
ence* took a position respecting the advanced action 

*Tn I860 the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church took 
advanced ground on the subject of slavery. It changed the old '•Section on 
Slavery'' entirely, so as to declare the •• buying, selling, and holding'' slaves 
•contrary to the laws of God and nature, and inconsistent with the 
Golden Rule, and with the rule of our Discipline which requires all who desire 
to continue among us to ' do no harm,' " etc. This was, in effect, making a new 



18G The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

of the General Conference of that year in reference to 
slavery which resulted, in 1862, in the division of that 

condition of continued membership, though, the general rule was not changed 
till 1864. 

It was this action of 1860 that drove the Baltimore Conference from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. Being a "border" Conference, it was called 
upon to decide, in 1846, to which Church it would "adhere," and it adhered— 
conditionally, however— to the Methodist Episcopal Church. It explained its 
action in a Pastoral Address, adopted by the Conference by a vote of 177 to 3, 
in which it said: 

"The Conference has learned, indeed, that the dissatisfaction which some 
express with their present Church-relations is . . . that they believe that 
the Methodist Episcopal Church will be forced . . . into such an altera- 
tion of the Discipline as to make non-slave-holding a condition of Church- 
fellowship. . . . We have no reasonable belief that our sister Conferences 
entertain any purpose or design to afflict us. . . . But if there were any 
grounds of suspicion that such an alteration of our Discipline is contemplated, 
may we not safely wait for its development? Will not the Baltimore Confer- 
ence be as competent to take the necessary measures which such a crisis might 
require at any future time as it is now? " 

And to prepare legally for such a contingency, the Conference, after a pream- 
ble reciting the facts of 1844-5 that required them to vote to which jurisdiction 
they would adhere, 

" 1. Resolved, by, etc., That we still continue to regard ourselves a constitu- 
ent part of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States. 

" •£. Resolved, That this Conference disclaims having any fellowship with Ab- 
olitionism; on the contrary, while it is determined to maintain its well-known 
and long-established position, by keeping the traveling preachers composing 
its own body free from slavery, it is also determined not to hold connect ion with any 
ecclesiastical body that, shall make non-slave-holding a condition of membership in the 
Church, but to stand by and maintain the Discipline as it is." 

In March, 1860, the Abolition party growing in the Church excited the appre- 
hensions of the laity, and several memorials on the subject were before the 
Conference; and the Conference replied to them as follows: 

"As to a separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church, we beg leave to 
say that this Conference has already declared what, in their opinion, would be 
a just cause of severance— viz. : ' any violation of our rights as now held under 
the Discipline.' This we have said time and again. . . . Our whole Church 
in the bounds of our Conference has our repeated pledge, and our brethren in 
the North are well acquainted with our oft-repeated declaration." 

Within three months of this declaration the General Conference of 1860 
took the action on slavery already noted; and the Baltimore Conference now 
considered its conditional adherence to the Methodist Episcopal Church made 
void thereby, and that its repeated pledges should now be made good. At its 
next session, 1861, it took position in accordance with its past action. Acting 
on a " Memorial from a Convention of Laymen (held in Baltimore, December 
5, 1860), representing a large majority of the laity" of the Church, and on 
" like papers from other sources," the Conference passed the following reso- 
lution: 

" 1. Be it resolved, by, etc., That we hereby declare that the General Confer- 
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held at Buffalo, May, 1860, by its un- 
constitutional action, has sundered the ecclesiastical relation which has 
hitherto bound us together as one Church, so far as any act of theirs could do 
so; that we will no longer submit to the jurisdiction of said General Confer- 
ence, but hereby declare ourselves separate and independent of it — still claiming to 
be, notwithstanding, an integral part of the Methodist Episcopal Church." 

This procedure looked toward inducing other Conferences to unite in this 
action, and all which did it — who would go back to the Discipline of 1856 — it 
was expected, would declare themselves " the only true and legitimate branch 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 'States ;" and if none joined 
in the action, then the Baltimore Conference would claim the position. The 
Bishops were also to be addressed, to know if they would " disavow the act 
of the late General Conference," as otherwise this body could "submit no 
longer to their oversight." 

Within a few months the armies separated the preachers of the Baltimore 
Conference— part being within the Federal, the larger part within the Confed- 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 187 

body, and the adhesion of much the larger section, in 
1866, to the Church, South. About the same time a 
body of Illinois Methodists, who had organized an in- 
dependent Conference, applied also to be received. In 
both these cases the movements toward the South 
were spontaneous, and not procured by aggression or 
sustained by an outlay of missionary moneys. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church, on the contrary, has 
mapped out the entire Southern territory into Confer- 
ences, with a considerable membership, formerly of 
the Church, South, but mostly blacks. It was made 
no secret among high officials that the purpose in view 
was to "disintegrate and absorb" Southern Method- 
ism; and the assertion has been made by the author* 
of this " slogan" that the policy may be considered to 
have measurably succeeded. 

The attitude assumed toward the Church, South, by 
the other Communion, during and after the Confeder- 
ate war, farther complicated the difficulties. After the 
Federal forces had forced the passage of the Missis- 
sippi Eiver, and occupied large sections of South- 
ern territory, Bishop Ames and some of the preachers 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church followed the victo- 
rious army with a circular order issued to its officers, 
under date of November 30, 1863, from the Secretary 
of War, Mr. Stanton, in which he said: 

"You are hereby directed to place at the disposal of Bishop Ames 
all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 

erate, lines. These could not get to the Conference to be held in Baltimore, 
March, 1862. About fifty members met there, many of whom had voted for 
all the action above recorded. Bishop Janes met with them, and they became 
reconciled to the Methodist Episcopal Church, and, by resolution, "declared 
the majority, absent thus compulsorily, withdrawn, by a vote of 22 to 11; and 
these and their successors claim to be the original Baltimore Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The majority of the Conference, however, met in its Virginia territory regu- 
larly every year, and maintained its organization; and I am informed that 
" the legality of these sessions has been admitted by the testimony, in Church 
suits, of some leading men on the other side." After the war this body as- 
sembled again in Baltimore, and there adopted this resolution: 

"■Resolved, by, etc., That, in pursuance of the action of this body in 1861, we 
do hereby unite with, and adhere to, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and do now, through the President of this Conference, invite Bishop Early to 
recognize us officially, and preside over us at our present session." 

Thus one hundred and eight traveling and fifty-seven local preachers, and 
nearly twelve thousand members, passed over to the Church, South. Dele- 
gates" were elected to its General Conference of 1866, and the union was there 
consummated. 

* Dr. Daniel Curry, in Christian Advocate and Journal. 



188 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

South, in which a loyal minister, who has been appointed by a 
loyal Bishop of said Church, does not officiate" — the very terms 
of the order giving the army officers the right of judgment as to 
who were "loyal" Bishops and ministers. 

Armed with this order, officials of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church took possession of several houses of 
worship in the occupied cities of the South, in spite of 
the remonstrances of the members owning them, and 
their pulpits were filled by preachers whom they con- 
sidered their political enemies. Even after the war 
had closed possession of several of these houses of 
worship was maintained until, after many obstructions 
and vexatious delays, they were restored to their right- 
ful owners by order of the Government.* Others of 
them — notably some in New Orleans — have never been 
surrendered. 

Changes of Church-relations have given rise to sun- 
dry other difficulties about houses of worship, parson- 
ages, and other Church -property, some of which have 
been settled by compromise and some by the courts, 
while .others are still pending with a view, as we have 
seen, to get the matter, if possible, before the Su- 
preme Court. The justification alleged in many of 
these cases for the retention of this property is that 
a large part, or all, of the congregations went over 
with the houses; though in some cases the houses went 
one way, and a large part, or all, of the worshipers 
another. The difficulties are more complicated still, it 
may be, by the alleged fact that it is mutual — that in 

*Dr. Matlack, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Presiding Elder of the 
New Orleans District, in Central (St. Louis) Advocate, of March 15, 1870, writes: 
" With -the humiliation of the South, the flight of her ministers, our Church, 
by national authority, occupied and held many pulpits of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South. No other denomination did just as we did in the matter. 
Temporary occupancy of pulpits occurred, in some instances, with others; 
but our ministers stood in the attitude of conquerors. They differed little, in 
appearance, from the relation of invaders. It did not so appear to them. It 
did so appear to the Church, South. It is so esteemed by them now. . . . 
If our occupancy of the pulpits of the Church, South, had been only for the 
purpose of offering the preaching of the word to deserted congregations, and, 
on the return of their pastors and the restoration of. peace, had been yielded 
up gracefully, it would have been better for the peace of the Methodist family. 
But such was not the case. Claims were set up to the property on questiona- 
ble grounds. Possession was retained until compelled to relinquish it by civil 
authority. . . . Did we not wrong our brethren in this thing? Is not con- 
fession of wrong far better than defense of wrong? Can we ignore our duty 
and be, guiltless before God and the Church of Christ? Our attitude, as a 
Church, toward the South, both ecclesiastically and politically, needs to be 
carefully examined." 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 189 

both Churches are to be found congregations which, 
transferring their membership, still retain possession 
of the Church-property they previously held. This 
fact is alleged against the Church, South, respecting 
property within the bounds of the old Baltimore Con- 
ference.* 

Meanwhile, the General Conference of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church was not wholly silent. In 1864 
it added to the conditions on which it would receive 
ministers from "other Christian Churches" one ex- 
pressly for the reception of any who might offer from 
the Church, South — namely: "Provided they give sat- 
isfactory assurances to an Annual or Quarterly Confer- 
ence of their loyalty to the National Government, and 
hearty approval of the anti-slavery doctrine of the 
Church." This political condition of transfer was 
rescinded in 1868; but not until after the Bishops of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, at their meeting at 
Erie, June, 1865 — when resolving " to occupy, as far as 
practicable, those fields in the Southern States" which 
"might be open to them," and which "gave promise of 
success " — extended "a cordial welcome to all ministers 
and members of whatever branch of Methodism who 
will unite with us [them] on the basis of our [their] 
loyal and anti-slavery Discipline." 

The only approach toward official intercourse during 
this time was by a deputation of the Holston Confer- 
ence (South) making complaint, to the General Con- 
ference of 1868, of the withholding of much of their 
valuable property- since the establishment, in 1865, of 
another Holston Conference (North), which relied 

* We have seen that the Baltimore Conference " adhered " North, in 1846, on 
certain conditions; that the conditions failed by an act of the General Confer- 
ence ; that it then felt free to rescind its adhesion to that jurisdiction ; and that, 
after six years of independent existence, it came, unsolicited, to the Church, 
South, with all its property. It was not for the General Conference to which it 
came to inquire about its property rights, which, so far as it could know, were un- 
disputed. It had declared, in 1861, that " we conceive [our action] to be the legit- 
imate one, and will effectually secure our rights, should necessity carry our 
cause before the civil courts for adjudication." It is certain that if it had adhered 
South in 1861, it. like the other Conferences which did so, would have brought 
its property with it, by the terms of the Plan of Separation. It believed that, 
by adhering North only conditionally, it secured to itself the right to transfer 
its adherence subsequently if the condition was not met; and it is purely a 
legal question whether, the conditional adherence becoming void, the rights 
of property, under the Plan, remained after failure of the condition, just as if 
the vote of 1846 had been for adherence to the Church, South. 



190 The Disruption of the If. E. Church. 

largely : ining its claims to the property on its 

political affinities. The memorialists were referred by 

the Conference to the body 01 which they complained 
for the restoration of their rights. 

I mention these facts here not to pronounce judg- 
ment for or against either party, but simply to sustain 
my assertion that whatever may have been --the seri- 
ous questions and difficulties'" in 1844, they were much 
more embarrassing in 1874. 

As has been seen, the Church. South, could not. con- 
sistently with self-respect and avowed purpose, make 
farther fraternal overtures to the other Communion ; 
and it would naturally be presumed that the Methodist 
- :opal Church, remembering that the " serious ques- 
tions and difficulties'* in the way of fraternization in 
1^4S had constantly grown more serious, would not. 
pt by first seeking to remove them, have made ad- 
vances toward restoring amity. But not so. Tenta- 
tive efforts to open an intercourse of some sort between 
the two bodies were made prior to 1874. not. indeed, 
by trying to put wholly out of the way the difficulties, 
but by going around them. But these were, at best. 
only semi-official courtesies interchanged, of which I 
now give account. 

In 1S69 the Southern Bishops met in St. Louis, where 
they were unexpectedly visited by Bishops Janes and 
Simpson, commissioned by the Episcopal College of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church to bear fraternal greet- 
ings. They were self-moved to do this, believing that, 
-tors." it became them to suggest a reunion 
of the two Churches. They were received with the 
utmost respect, and their communication answered 
courteously, but candidly. The Southern Bishops did 
not conceive -reunion" the first question to be consid- 
ered; it must be preceded by the establishment of fira- 
'itions between the two Churches. 
They cited the final words of Dr. Pierce in 1848, which, 
in 1850. had been adopted as the language of the 
Church. South. 

t; If the offer of fraternal relations is ever made upon the basis 
of the Plan of St le Church, South, will cordially 

entertain the proposition," Dr. P. wrote; and they add: "Toucan- 



The Disruption of the li. E. Church. 191 

not expect us to say less than this, that the words of our rejected 
Delegate are our words." And again: "Allow us, in all kindness, 
brethren, to remind you, and to keep the important foci of 
prominent, thai we separated from you in no sense in which 
did not separate from us. The separation was by compact, and 
mutual; and nearer approaches to each other can he conducted, with 
hope of successful issue, only on this basis." They also called at- 
tention "to the conduct of some of the missionaries and agents 
sent into" the South, and to their "course in taking possession of 
some of our houses of worship;" and, granting it not impossible 
"that our own people may not have been in every instance with- 
out blame toward y u." they add, "If any offenses against the law 
of k - ted by thi se under our appointment, any aggressions 

upon your just privi rights, are properly represented to 

us. we shall stand ready, by ail the authority and influence we 
have, to restrain and correc 

There was no response; but. in 1870, Bishop Janes 
and Dr. (now Bishop) Harris visited the Southern Gen- 
eral Conference at Memphis. A commission had been 
appointed, in 1868, to consider certain overtures for 
union from African Zion Church; and its powers were 
enlarged "to treat with a similar commission from any 
other Methodist Church that may desire union.'' This 
commission went somewhat beyond the letter of its 
•■instructions, and sent these Delegates to suggest the 
propriety of -union." - " and of the appointment : 
similar commission to confer with that of their Church 
on said subject. This was acknowledged to be an over- 
ture not emanating directly from the General C 
ference. and the Southern body did not esteem the 
authority of the commission sufficient to warrant its 
being relied on as an expression of the wish or senti- 
ment of the Church: and the visit, as was probably 
expected, ended in only the cordial reception and h( 3- 
pitable entertainment of the distinguished visit* 
Among the resolutions which the occasion elicited was 
this: 

Resolved. That the action of our Bishops in their last annual 
meeting, in St. Louis, in response to the message from the Bishops 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, has the full indori 
this General Conference, and accurately defines our . - - in ref- 
erence to any overtures which may proceed from that Church hav- 
ing in them an official and proper recognition uf that body. 

Here, then, is the platform on whioh Southern Moth- 



192 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

odism stands — propounded by Dr. Pierce in 1848 — 
confirmed by the General Conference in 1850 — reas- 
serted by the Bishops in 1869 — and again confirmed 
unanimously, in 1870, by a full General Conference of 
lay and clerical Delegates — namely: Her foundation, as 
a separate ecclesiastical organization, was, by authority, 
laid in the Plan of Separation, and this fact must be 
recognized as the basis of a permanent peace and cor- 
dial fraternization. 

The course of events now carries us to the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1872. 
Sundry resolutions, having reference to the relations 
of the two Churches, were offered to that body, and 
sent to the Committee on the State of the Church. 
The report from that committee was called up toward 
the close of the Conference. The following comprises 
most of it : 

"We believe that very generally there has hitherto existed among 
our people a disposition of good-will and Christian fraternity to- 
ward the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. This disposition 
and purpose we still hold and maintain. 

Eespecting whatever intercourse there has been between us and 
them since the beginning of the separate existence of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, South, we do not propose to say any thing 
at this time. We are content to let past events go into history, or 
be forgotten, as the case may be; and, recognizing that Church 
and its people as a portion of the great Christian and Methodist 
family, we wish them abundant success in their efforts to promote 
the cause of Christ and his gospel. 

Within the parts of the country in which the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, has nearly all its membership and institutions 
. . our Church is as really settled as in -any part of the land; 
and every consideration of good faith to our own people, and of 
regard to the integrity of our Church, and especially of the un- 
mistakable evidences of the favor of God toward our efforts there, 
forbids the thought of relaxing our labors in that part of our work. 
We must, therefore, continue to occupy that part of the country 
in perpetuity; and we have need to strengthen and reenforce our 
work in it, as God shall give us the means and the opportunities. 
But in all this we desire to avoid all unfriendly rivalries with our 
brethren of the Church, South. . . . 

To place ourselves in the truly fraternal relations toward our 
Southern brethren which the sentiments of our people demand, 
and to prepare the way for the opening of formal fraternity with 
them, be it hereby 

Resolved, That this General Conference will appoint a delegation, consisting 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 193 

of two ministers and one layman, to convey fraternal greetings to the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at its next ensuing 
session. 

The discussion — if discussion it can be called — was 
brief. 

F. G. Hibbard thought that "this proposed action would not 
satisfy the Church, South. There are certain facts in connection 
with this matter that we may as well realize first as last. The 
Church, South, it is well known, demands of us that we meet cer- 
tain specified questions, and settle them; and until that is done, in 
his opinion, there is no use in taking action in this direction. Let 
us meet these points fairly and settle them, and then he doubted 
not that coalescence would be a comparatively easy matter." 

This promised well. Surely Dr. H. remembers, or 
has seen, Dr. Pierce's parting letter to the Conference 
of 1848 — although not published in its Journal — and 
has some idea of the Southern "platform." But our 
hopes are presently dashed. He explains that the ac- 
tion of 1848, necessary to be rescinded "before these 
approaches will prove availing," is the action by which 
"we [Methodist Episcopal Church] declined to receive 
their fraternal Delegate." And again: "If we shake 
hands with the Church, South, as he heartily wished 
we might do, we must meet and obviate their objection 
to our action of 1848 on the same subject." 

But there were other speakers. 

The Rev. W. H. Black (of Kentucky) had been many years 
alongside the Church, South, and he felt that the report recom- 
mends a step in the right direction. 

Hon. R. O. Bonner (of Missouri) thought the time had fully 
come when our Church can afford to approach the brethren of the 
South, and hold out to them the olive-branch of peace. There are 
some obstacles in the way of their approaching us. They did this 
in 1848. and we did not receive them, because circumstances sur- 
rounded us then that prevented it; hut those circumstances are 
changed, and it is easy now to approach them. 

The Rev. J. Braden (of Tennessee) had spent some years in the 
South; felt strong desire for union ; the Southern brethren thought 
the rejection of Dr. Pierce, in 1848, an indignity; circumstances 
have changed; we can approach them. He had talked with many, 
Bishop Paine among others, who said, "with tears," that he re- 
gretted the condition of affairs between the two Churches, and 
greatly desired a change for the better. 

Dr. Akers had lately been in the South, and the general feeling 
there is one of friendship. 

Judge Caldwell thought old issues past, and he did not propose 
9 



194 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

to fight over those old "battles; their members from the South very 
generally agree in this proposition, and they are the parties most 
generally interested. He was for adopting the report. 

Dr. Stevenson (of Kentucky) believed the hearts of many Meth- 
odists in the South are yearning for fraternity. 

Dr. Slicer thought it always safe to love people; and as "we had 
met everybody else with fraternal greetings," ought not the South 
to be included? 

The Rev. E. O. Fuller (of Georgia) had been some years in the 
South, and believed there is a great and growing tendency toward 
fraternization. 

Dr. Matlack thought there was not the slightest occasion for the 
retraction suggested by Dr. Hibbard. There has never been in the 
South any demand that that action should be rescinded. Their 
position was, they had made their last overture, and "we now must 
be the approaching party." 

Dr. Curry, chairman of the committee, thought that the report 
meets the case as fully as it can be met, and makes just the provis- 
ion which should be adopted. We are not prepared to take back 
our action. We did right in 1848, as we were then situated; but 
the situation had changed since that time, and we now ought to be 
willing to commit ourselves to the changed circumstances. There 
were things then that made it impossible for us reasonably to act 
otherwise than we did; and we do not repent of that action, for 
we are not under conviction that it was wrong. Let the history 
remain as it is. We are now speaking for 1872. We will make 
no confessions, and we ask them to make none; but we are ready 
to forget differences and shake hands. 

Could one, hearing these opinions, have imagined 
that the South had ever uttered a word respecting the 
conditions of fraternization? had ever intimated, even 
remotely, that to have it to become mutual and perma- 
nent it must be based upon an acknowledgment of the 
Plan repudiated in 1848? that there was any more to 
be done by the Methodist Episcopal Church, now that 
it "could afford to approach us," than to send its Dele- 
gates on, and we would fly into their arms? Yet there 
was a vague notion afloat, I must believe, that the N 
South had made some condition; yet none could get be- 
yond the idea that the rescinding of the action declin- 
ing to receive our Delegate was the important demand. 
Dr. Matlack wisely said that this was not demanded. 
The South has sense enough to see that the sending of 
messengers by the General Conference opens the door 
to fraternity which that action closed — most effectually 
rescinds it — and there can be no other rescission of 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 195 

that action, unless it be to reverse the declaration that 
there are "serious questions and difficulties" between 
the two Churches, which would not be true, or to rescind 
the proviso which kindly offered 'to hear any Southern 
representative empowered to negotiate respecting ex- 
isting difficulties, which rescission would not help on 
fraternity. 

The report was adopted by a rising vote — Bishops 
and all — with but two negatives. And now the mes- 
sengers are ordered, surely the Conference will avoid 
the mistake of the South in 1846, and will, besides 
sending fraternal messages, take some step toward set- 
tling the "serious questions and difficulties" acknowl- 
edged to exist. The prospect is hopeful. There is a 
part of the report yet to come. Here it is: 

Your committee have also investigated the subject of Church- 
property in dispute between the Methodist Episcopal Church and 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; and believing that no 
general rule can be prescribed in advance that will apply with 
justice in all cases, we therefore recommend the following action 
by the General Conference: 

1. Resolved, That where conflicting claims exist to the same Church-property, 
we advise that they he adjusted, as speedily as possible, by negotiation, com- 
promise, or arbitration, by the parties more immediately interested, upon the 
principles of equity. and Christian charity. 

2. Resolved, That the General Conference appoint a Board of three Commis- 
sioners to meet a similar Board to be appointed bv the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, who shall agree upon some uniform 
principles or plan of adjustment. 

Of course this will pass — perhaps many who voted 
for the first part of the report would have thought it 
an offense to send offers of fraternity, without append- 
ing this practical peace-offering; and but for the expec- 
tation of taking this, as the second step toward pacifi- 
cation, would have felt it disingenuous to take the first 
— some men do reason that way. But, lo! see the end: 

The remainder of the report respecting Church-property was 
withdrawn, after which the report, as a whole, was adopted. 

Before passing away from this action, let us notice that 
it involves three points, all of which must necessarily 
be considered by the Church, South, before it can shape 
its action honorably, as well as fraternally, to meet this 
proposed overture. 

1. "The past events" this Conference is "content to 



196 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

let go into history, or be forgotten." These words must 
be considered in the light thrown upon them by the 
chairman of the committee. He said: "We are not 
prepared to take back our action; we did right in 
1848; . . . we do not repent of that action." These 
words were uttered by one who — whatever the Con- 
ference, generally, knew — must have known that the 
Church, South (to which, indeed, they were uttered),* 
had said over and again, "If ever the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church should at any time make the offer of fra- 
ternal relations to the Church, South, on the basis of the 
Plan of Separation of 1844, that Church will cordially 
entertain the proposition." Yet this proffer is now 
made, with the distinct avowal that the repudiation of 
this Plan in 1848 was "right." What we have seen 
was the real — the invariable — demand of the South, as 
the condition precedent to fraternity, was ignored in 
all the speeches on the occasion, and many, doubtless, 
who voted for the resolutions had never heard of it. 
I cannot avoid the conviction that had the Conference 
been informed on this point it would have paused, in 
self-respect, before committing itself to the earnest so- 
licitations of these "members from the South," to make 
some proffer of fraternity, however empty, that they 
might return home rejoicing in the magnanimity of 
their Church. Sad the whole truth been told, would that 
General Conference have sent messengers to the Church, 
South? 

Be that as it may, those who engineered this matter 
were skillful, and resolved that the Conference should 
not be misunderstood. The Church, South, was not to 
suppose that there was to be any pause in the work of 
occupancy. They seemed to have forgotten the history 
of a previous partition of territory with the British 
Conference, f and the Christian large-heartedness and 
catholic non-intrusiveness that was then set as an ex- 
ample to them. The Conference assures the South that 
its purpose is "to continue to occupy that part of the 
country in perpetuity." It is, in effect, a plain avowal 

* Dr. Hibbard's speech shows that it was expected that the South would con- 
sider the entire, action of the Conference. 
fSee page 157. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 197 

to it beforehand: "You need say no more, as hereto- 
fore, about the Plan of Separation; we offer you our 
hand; that is all. If you have any complaints against 
us, 'let them go into history, or be forgotten.' " 

2. "The Church-property in dispute" between the 
two Churches — this subject "had been investigated;" 
and, as we have seen, it was considered so insig- 
nificant a "question and difficulty" that it could be 
left, without the slightest action, to take care of it- 
self. 

3. The proffer of fraternity was that part of this ac- 
tion of the Conference addressed directly to the South- 
ern Church for its consideration; but it is manifest that 
it could not be considered except in the light of the 
avowal of opinion and purpose and of the treatment 
of the property difficulties by the Conference — unless 
the Church, South, was prepared for a total surrender 
of its long-cherished and oft-declared convictions of 
right. It is certain that if this proffer was not at first 
instigated altogether by "their members from the 
South," it was at least strenuously advocated by them 
— and by them almost wholly — and by others, because 
they were "the parties most generally interested," and 
were "generally agreed in the proposition." It is hard 
to see how these "members from the South," knowing 
all they knew of their past relations to Southern Meth- 
odists, and aware of all the "serious questions and dif- 
ficulties" rife in their territory, and of the repeated 
utterances of the Southern Church, could have expected 
any thing but a rejection of this proffer, as not made 
on the terms the Church, South, had set. Had they 
sought this result for policy's sake, they could scarce 
have better shaped their action to secure it. For, as 
if the analogy in circumstances was not sufficiently 
parallel to that of 1848, by reason of the accumulated 
"serious questions and difficulties" to warrant such re- 
sult, they made it complete by so managing that the 
Conference, after coming to the very verge of provid- 
ing a commission "for the settlement of existing diffi- 
culties," was led to abandon this seeming purpose, 
nemine contradicente ; and thus that Church left its fra- 
ternal Delegates without that power for lack of which, 



198 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

in 1848, our representative was turned away from its 
portals.* 

It could hardly have been considered other than equity 
if the Church, South, had borrowed a chapter out of his- 
tory and, following high precedent, had met the mes- 
sengers of fraternity with some such utterance as this : 

"Whereas, "There are serious questions and difficulties between 
the two bodies," said in 1848 to be of such a nature that "it was 
not supposed the Church, South, would attempt to settle them," as 
a settlement would require that its editors should "retract their 
course" — its Bishops "confess their offenses and promise amend- 

*It is impossible, and would be unjust, to implicate the entire General Con- 
ference in maneuvering here. The most of that body knew, as the speeches 
show, too little of the condition and feelings of the South. The reason for 
the strange course its action took seems to have been known to but few. 
Nearly two years afterward, the chairman felt called on to explain the sudden 
repression of the second resolution. He says that, in the interval between 
the preparation of the report and the action upon it, its principal supporters 
represented the property cases " as exceedingly complicated and difficult of 
adjustment by any uniform rule, and most of them were approximating final 
settlement, by compromises and friendly arrangements," so that General Con- 
ference action " might do harm." So the second resolution was withdrawn, at 
the " request of the"best men of the Conference— lay and clerical Delegates, rep- 
resenting Southern Conferences." The explanation relieves of the charge of 
disingenuousness the body of the General Conference — of whom it would be 
indeed painful to imagine it — but attaches it to these " best men'''' of the South- 
ern Conferences. It is a little remarkable that the astute chairman of the com- 
mittee permitted himself to be used by these " best men" in a way to cast a 
shadow of suspicion over the Conference. Dr. Matlack, whom I cannot sup- 
pose to have joined in this request, since he introduced a resolution similar 
to this, tells us, as stated above, that there were facts that needed investiga- 
tion ; and these " best men" were those whose conduct at the South would be 
the subject of examination. It was not to their interest that there should be a 
commission — but it was to the interest of the entire Church that such a com- 
mission be appointed to make a searching investigation— yet their urgent re- 
quest prevailed with the pliant chairman, and he withdrew the only practical 
part of his report. And the reason ! The cases would soon be settled! lam 
ignorant here; but has one in ten been settled by negotiation and compromise? 
Thus these "best men" were permitted to carry a measure which left their 
conduct uninvestigated, while yet they could come South and parade the mag- 
nanimity of their Church — forgetting that such magnanimity looks somewhat 
like mrtttgnity, when a rich, powerful, victorious Church, having the ear of the 
Government, presses fraternity, upon its own conditions, on a Church in a con- 
quered province, not recovered from the disasters of war, and which has over 
and again declared it could not accept fraternity but upon certain speci- 
fied terms. Nor did these "best men" consider the chairman's reputation 
more than that of their Church, as they managed to get him into suspicious 
circumstances, who least could afford "it; for, if any one needed to shun the 
appearance of pursuing a Machiavelian policy to secure credit as a hearty 
" Iratornizer " it was he, who, it is believed, had first conveyed the knowledge 
to the Northern leaders that Bishop Andrew was " connected with slavery," who 
had been active in promoting the repudiation of the Plan, who had been con- 
stantly at war with the South and Southern white men, who had been the great 
advocate of " disintegration and absorption," and who might now be suspected 
by his enemies of having contrived a scheme admirably suited to promote that 
policy — offering a fraternity which would probably be rejected, yet giving op- 
portunity to impute an unchristian attitude to the Southern Church among 
those ignorant of all the facts. It is a relief, however, to see that neither he 
nor the General Conference is to blame for a crooked policy — it was only the 
" best men " of the Southern Delegates. 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 199 

ment" — and its General C< nference "retract its decisions," to ask 
all which, the historian of the Great Secession, so called, has said, 
"would be received as an insult by the South;" and whereas, these 
"questions and difficulties" are not only yet unsettled, but have 
grown much more "serious" in the intervening time — by the nul- 
lification of the Plan of Separation; by the entire obliteration of 
the "border" line; by the occupancy, under military authority,, and 
in other ways, of houses of worship, still held; by the avowal and 
prosecution of the policy of disintegration and absorption; and by 
such semi-official denial of the obligation of acquiescence in the 
decision of the Supreme Court — which gives us legal title to prop- 
erty, our moral right to which was denied in repudiating the Plan 
— that we can never feel secure against attempts to deprive us of 
it, unless that purpose is officially disavowed; and, it may be, by 
property questions, in which members of the Church, South, are 
considered the aggressors; and whereas, as in 1848, so now, "if the 
fraternization were once recognized, it would preclude all farther 
adjustment, and virtually acknowledge" that the Church, South, 
"was at fault," and would be "giving a pledge to submit to any 
and all aggressions" in future; therefore, 

Resolved, "That we do not consider it proper, at present, to en- 
ter into fraternal relations" with the Methodist Episcopal Church: 
"Provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be so con- 
strued as to operate as a bar to any propositions from " the fraternal 
messengers, "or any other representatives" of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, "toward the settlement of existing difficulties between 
that body and this;" although "it is not supposed" that they can 
"assure" this body that any thing will be retracted by the said 
Church. 

A preamble and resolution of this sort could have 
been made up, almost wholly, of utterances of the 
General Conference of 1848, and of those of official 
expositors of its action; and would the judgment of 
the world have condemned the Church, South, had it 
met the overtures prepared by the "members from the 
South" with some such declaration — one drawn from 
such high sources? It would, perhaps, have been 
thought rude — too severe a retaliation for Christian 
people to make — not generous — cruel — but never un- 
just. The proffer, however, was not thus met. The 
fraternal Delegates came and handsomely fulfilled their 
mission ; and they were received cordially, as represent- 
ing — not particularly the "members from the South," 
but — that large section of Northern Methodists who, 
as ignorant of the difficulties between the Churches, 
as one of the Delegates professed to be, believe South- 
ern Methodism to be something other than a "secession 



200 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

from the Mother Church," and so are honestly desirous 
of cultivating fraternity. To the history of this "greet- 
ing" we now turn. 

The General Conference of 1874, convened in Louis- 
ville, Ky., was informed on May 7 that the Revs. Albert 
S. Hunt, D.D., and Charles H. Fowler, D.D., and General 
Clinton B. Fisk, were in the city, waiting to convey the 
fraternal greetings which they had been delegated to 
bear to that body. A resolution was passed, express- 
ing the readiness of the Conference to receive them — 
an hour on the next day was set for their reception — 
and a committee was instructed to notify them of the 
facts. In short, courtesies were shown such as had 
marked the advent of Bishop Janes and Dr. Harris to 
the Conference of 1870. At the time appointed, the 
committee escorted the fraternal messengers to the 
platform, on which sat the Bishops and the venerable 
Dr. L. Pierce;* and, after mutual introductions, their 
credentials were read. The presiding Bishop then in- 
troduced them to the Conference; and then they sev- 
erally delivered addresses, of which the Journal says, 
They "were characterized by excellent taste, great abil- 
ity, and warm fraternal sentiments, which were well 
received by the Conference and the immense audience 
in attendance." All possible courtesy was afterward 
shown the messengers, they being invited to "be at 
home anywhere within the bar or on the platform," 
and "to share the hospitalities of the people, and to 
preach in our pulpits." A committee was appointed, 
to which was "referred the subject of the communica- 
tion." Before this committee had reported, the mes- 
sengers found it necessary to leave, and, on the eve of 
their departure, the following was passed: 

Whereas, The message of love and brotherly kindness from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church has been cordially received, and has 
been referred to a committee of nine, who, in due time, will cordi- 
ally and fraternally reply thereto: 

Resolved, That We regret that the distinguished messengers sent 
by that Church cannot remain to await the presentation and recep- 
tion of that report; but, understanding that they leave us to-day, 
we are unwilling that they should return home without carrying 

* This was not for effect. Dr. P. occupied the platform by request, on a mo- 
tion made early in the session. 



The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 201 

with them the knowledge of our appreoiation of their courteous 
and fraternal bearing among us, and our wishes and prayers for 
their future happiness and prosperity. 

This resolution elicited remarks from several mem- 
bers, they responding to the sentiments of the messen- 
gers heartily and in their own spirit, and exhibiting 
the wish of the Conference for a solid peace. After a 
few remarks in response, the messengers took their 
leave. 

The addresses of these messengers were all they are 
said above to have been, and they made a profound 
impression upon the Conference in favor of both the 
speakers and their cause. In their tenor they were 
but general expressions of opinion and sentiment upon 
matters quite out of the field of controversy. The 
sj)eakers could but carefully avoid all explicit refer- 
ence to existing difficulties; for their Conference, by 
the disposition it made of the resolution on the prop- 
erty question, had virtually silenced them upon that 
subject. To have brought it up would have been to 
go beyond their commission, and they could only have 
expressed their own opinions. In effect, they were 
there to say: "We offer you fraternal greetings to- 
day; with the past and future we have nothing to 
do; nor are we authorized to state the attitude of our 
Church in respect to any difficulties existing between 
us; what that is you must learn from the Journals of 
our General Conference." Gen. Fisk said that when 
a friend proposed, recently, to "post" him "about the 
great events of 1844," he "declined the information;" 
and he proceeded to make an address marked by a 
poetic pathos that brought tears enough to remind the 
older members of the Valley of Bochim of 1844. His 
eloquence made the hearers almost as oblivious of 1844 
as he himself was; and a few of them seem to have 
found it so lethean a draught that they temporarily 
forgot 1848, 1850, 1869, and 1870. But with all the 
restrictions which the action of their Conference had 
imposed upon them, the messengers could not wholly 
repress the under-current of thought. It would rise^ 
to the surface. Dr. Hunt said: 

Nearly thirtv years have passed since the separate organization 
9* 



202 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

of your Church. . . . Most of the prominent actors of that 
period are gathered to the home ahove. . . . To us who come 
to you, to hundreds of thousands whom we represent, and we sup- 
pose also to a large majority of the members of your honorable 
body, the transactions of the former days, when we were one, are 
known only as matters of history. We are not unmindful of the 
fact that perplexing questions have arisen, during the last quarter 
of a century, concerning which there have been, and still are, hon- 
est diversities of opinion. There are some points in which we are at 
variance; but there are many more in which we are agreed. . . . 
"We have been moved to come to you seeking fraternal intercourse. 
"We give you the assurance that we desire no basis for this inter- 
course but one which both Churches will esteem altogether honor- 
able. 

And Dr. Fowler made an address of wonderful elo- 
quence, in which he pictured, with great felicity, the 
glorious achievements of Methodism, and so wrought 
upon the imagination and hearts of his hearers that 
they forgot both Plan and repudiation — forgot that 
they were being addressed by a representative of the 
so-called "Mother Church," from which they were 
considered but a "secession" — forgot their "schism" in 
the presence of the painted glories of the original 
Methodism — and they listened with eager ears until he 
pronounced, his final word: 

Leaving organic union as a question of the future, let us make 
the union of our hearts the question of to-day: and make one holy 
covenant that from this hour, one in sympathy and one in purpose, 
we will toil on, shoulder to shoulder, waiting patiently for that near 
to-morrow, when there shall be but one Methodism for mankind. 

The fraternal expressions of these speeches were 
responded to, in the courtesies of the occasion, the 
resolutions already quoted, the remarks accompanying 
them, and the resolve to send messengers in return, 
who should finish, in the General Conference of 1876, 
the work here inaugurated. But the allusions so deli- 
cately made to the "perplexing questions" and "di- 
versities of opinion" — to "organic union" — and to the 
mutual "desire that the basis of intercourse" should 
be one esteemed "by both Churches altogether honor- 
able" — and, more particularly, the public action of the 
General Conference, accompanying the inception of 
this fraternizing movement, in which it declared its 
"basis" of intercourse — these could not properly be 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 203 

answered in mellifluous resolutions respecting frater- 
nity, or in courteous addresses to these honored breth- 
ren. Manifestly, the answer to these items, necessarily 
before the Conference, could be made only in the way 
that the General Conference of 1872, in noticing them 
(though in very general terms), had treated them — 
namely, by a report embodying the opinions and de- 
cisions of the body on these points. The intercourse 
so pleasantly begun could be maintained hereafter only 
on a "basis" esteemed "altogether honorable by both 
Churches;" and as one of these Churches had, in a 
"report on a fraternal delegation," set forth the "basis" 
it "esteemed honorable," so it was certainly proper 
that the respondent should declare its "basis" in the 
same way. This manifest propriety gave shape to the 
report the committee offered, and had it been so un- 
derstood by all the Conference, it would probably have 
elicited no opposition. It would, doubtless, be more 
agreeable to very many in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church had the Church, South, been more pliant than 
itself, and, washing away its principles with its tears, 
yielded, without either a sigh or a sign of conscious- 
ness, the purposes and sentiments of thirty years — had 
it quietly ignored the sentence of outlawry of 1848, 
while the other Church pronounced it "right;" and 
looking only to the last paragraph of its report (copied 
into the credentials of the Delegates) and the resolu- 
tion accompanying it, had answered them only. So 
a respectable minority of the Southern Conference 
thought; but it was evidently without looking so 
closely into the nature of this transaction, as did the 
judicious committee to which the subject was referred. 
They did not take so narrow a view of the bearings of 
the question, and they maintained their position suc- 
cessfully before the Conference, which proved itself 
not disposed to be so governed by a gush of feeling as 
to sacrifice all consistency to a sentiment — however 
admirable in itself considered — or to abandon in an 
hour the underlying truths by which the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, claimed a right to be at all, 
and to which it had cleaved, in darker days, and now, 
for a generation, amid obloquy, and oppression, and 



204 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

exclusion from the sympathies of the Christian 
world. 

The committee reported on May 22. An effort was 
made to substitute a resolution which, perhaps, every 
member of the Conference could have voted for — so 
general was the fraternal sentiment — but that it ig- 
nored all reference to often-avowed principles, and did 
not recognize the nature of this entire transaction. 
No vote was taken on it, and it disappeared, by being 
referred to the original committee, with some of the 
dissentients added, to see if harmony of action could 
be secured. The committee returned precisely the 
former report, with only a change in arrangement of 
topics. A minority report was offered, consisting of 
several of the first and last paragraphs of the other — 
all historical allusions being eliminated. This was not 
adopted — the vote being 65 to 103; and then the re- 
port of the committee was adopted by a vote of 110 to 
61, as follows: 

Report oe the Committee on Fraternal Relations with 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The committee to whom was referred the matter of the fraternal 
greetings, conveyed to this General Conference hy Delegates duly 
commissioned from the General Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, respectfully report: 

We have considered the action of the General Conference of that 
Church, at its session in Brooklyn, New York, in May, 1872, and 
which is partially incorporated in the certificate of the Delegates, 
in the following terms, to wit: 

To place ourselves in the truly fraternal relations toward our Southern 
brethren which the sentiments of our people demand, and to prepare the way 
for the opening of formal fraternity with them, it is hereby 

Resolved, That this General Conference will appoint a delegation, consisting 
of two ministers and one layman, to convey our fraternal greetings to the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at its next en- 
suing session. 

On Friday, May 8, this delegation, consisting of the Kev. Dr. 
Albert S. Hunt, the Rev. Dr. Charles H. Eowler, and Gen. Clinton 
B. Fisk, having announced their presence, were formally received, 
and their communications heard by the Conference. 

It is with pleasure that we bear testimony to the distinguished 
ability, and to the eloquent and courteous manner in which these 
Christian brethren discharged their trust. Their utterances warmed 
our hearts. Their touching allusions to the common heritage of 
Methodist history, to our oneness of doctrines, polity, and usage, 
and their calling to mind the great work in which we are both en- 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 205 

gaged for the extension of the kingdom of their Lord and ours, 
stirred within us precious memories. 

We are called upon, by the terms of the action of their General 
Conference, to consider measures necessary "to prepare the way 
for the opening of formal fraternity." Every transaction and ut- 
terance of our past history pledges us to regard favorahly, and to 
meet promptly, this initial response to our long-expressed desire. 

It is admissible to review briefly what has been done, or at- 
tempted, by us in this direction. Our General Conference of 1846 
"Resolved, by a rising and unanimous vote, That Dr. Lovick Pierce 
be, and is hereby, delegated to visit the General Conference of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, to be held in Pittsburgh, May 1, 1848, 
to tender to that body the Christian regards and salutations of the 
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." 
In pursuance of this action Dr. Pierce, duly commissioned, was 
present at the seat of the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and by a note courteously advised them of his 
errand. The answer of that body was a unanimous vote declaring 
that "there are serious questions and difficulties existing between 
the two bodies;" and they did "not consider it proper, at present, 
to enter into fraternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South." Had our Delegate been received and allowed a 
hearing, a more definite understanding might have been obtained 
of those "serious questions and difficulties," and the result, we 
think, would have been in the interest of peace. He closed his 
letter to the General Conference, on receiving a copy of its action, 
in these words: "You will therefore regard this communication as 
final on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. She 
can never renew the offer of fraternal relations between the two 
great bodies of Wesleyan Methodists in the United States. But 
the proposition can be renewed at any time, either now or here- 
after, by the Methodist Episcopal Church. And if ever made 
upon the basis of the Plan of Separation, as adopted by the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1844, the Church, South, will cordially enter- 
tain the proposition." He reported the failure of his mission to 
our General Conference in St. Louis, in 1850, which thereupon 
adopted the following: 

Resolved, That we will steadfastly adhere to the ground taken in the last 
communication of our Delegate to the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, in Pittsburgh, in May, 1848, to wit: That we cannot, under 
their act of rejection and refusal, renew our offer of fraternal relations and in- 
tercourse; but will, at all times, entertain any proposition coming from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church to us, whether it be by written communication or 
delegation, having for its object friendly relations, and predicated of the rights 
granted to us by the Plan of Separation adopted in New York, in 1844. 

Here the matter rested until May, 1869, when the Bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church opened negotiations with our Bishops 
at their annual meeting in St. Louis, inviting them to "confer" as 
to "the propriety, practicability, and methods of reunion." Our 
Bishops respectfully declined to consider that subject, but invited 
their attention to one having precedence — the cultivation of fra- 
ternal relations. They suggested the removal of causes of strife; 



206 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

and this was done in a manner and spirit that met the hearty ap- 
proval of our Church. They reaffirmed the position in which Dr. 
Pierce had lefl the matter, saying: "The words of our rejected 
Delegate have heen ever since, and still are, our words." 

One passage of this correspondence we quote. The Northern 
Bishops, in their letter, used these words: "That the great cause 
which led to the separation from us of both the Wesley an Meth- 
odists of this country and of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, has passed away." To which the Southern Bishops replied: 
" We cannot think you mean to offend us when you speak of our 
having separated from you, and put us in the same category with 
a small body of schismatics who were always an acknowledged se- 
cession. Allow us, in all kindness, brethren, to remind you, and to 
keep the important fact of history prominent, that we separated 
from you in no sense in which you did not separate from us. The 
separation was by compact and mutual; and nearer approaches to 
each other can be conducted, with hope of a successful issue, only 
on this basis." 

A deputation visited our General Conference of 1870, at Mem- 
phis, proposing to treat with us, in the name of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, on the subject of union. They were received 
and heard with great respect. - But it appeared, upon due inquiry, 
that they were not commissioned to us by their General Conference 
— the only body with which we can treat on Connectional interests. 
Nevertheless, the General Conference referred their communication 
to a committee, whose report, unanimously adopted, contained these 
resolutions: 

Resolved, That the action of our Bishops, in their last annual meeting in St. 
Louis, in response to the message of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, has the full indorsement of this General Conference, and accurately 
defines our position in reference to any overtures which may proceed from 
that Church, having in them an official and proper recognition of this hody. 

Resolved, moreover, That if this distinguished Commission were fully clothed 
with authority to treat with us for union, it is the judgment of this Conference 
that the true interests of the Church of Christ require and demand the main- 
tenance of our separate and distinct organization. 

Resolved, That we tender to the Rev. Bishop E. S. Janes, and the Rev. W. L. 
Harris, D.D., the members of the Commission now with us, our high regards 
as brethren beloved, in the Lord, and express our desire that the day may soon 
come when proper Christian sentiments and fraternal relations between the 
two great branches of Northern and Southern Methodism shall be permanently 
established. 

Thus stood the case when the distinguished Delegates of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, duly authorized by their General 
Conference of 1872, brought us their fraternal greetings. We hail 
them with pleasure, and embrace the opportunity at length afforded 
us of entering into negotiations to secure tranquillity and fellow- 
ship to our alienated' Communions upon a permanent basis, and 
alike honorable to all. 

We deem it proper, for the attainment of the object sought, to 
guard against all misapprehension. Organic union is not involved 
in fraternity. In our view of the subject, the reasons for the sepa- 
rate existence of these two branches of Methodism are such as to 
make corporate union undesirable and impracticable. The events and 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 207 

experiences of the last thirty years have confirmed us in the con- 
viction that such a consummation is demanded by neither reason 
nor charity. We believe that each Church can do its work, and 
fulfill its mission most effectively, by maintaining an independent 
organization. The causes which led to the division in 1844, upon 
a plan of separation mutually agreed upon, have not disappeared. 
Some of them exist in their original form and force, and. others 
have been modified, but not diminished. 

The size of the Connection, and the extent of territory covered 
by it, had produced on some thoughtful minds before the events of 
1844 the impression that separation would be convenient, if not 
otherwise advantageous. The General Conference, upon any proper 
basis of representation, was becoming too unwieldy for the ends 
originally designed. If this reason was of force then, it is more 
conclusive now. The membership of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, exceeds six hundred thousand; our Northern 
brethren have more than twice that number. Our General Con- 
ference is now composed of nearly three hundred ministers and 
laymen; theirs is proportionately larger. 

It will be remembered that the last formal deliverance of the 
Southern representatives, in the united General Conference, was a 
protest against the power claimed for, and exercised by, that high- 
est judicatory of the Church. The Northern members, who were 
a controlling majority, claimed for it prerogatives which seemed to 
us both dangerous and unconstitutional. In their view the General 
Conference is supreme. Although restricted in the exercise of its 
powers by a Constitution, it is the judge of the restrictions, and is 
thus practically unlimited. In our view the General Conference is 
a body of limited powers. It cannot absorb the functions of other 
and coordinate branches of the Church-government, and there are 
methods by which all constitutional questions may be brought to a 
satisfactory issue. Each Church still maintains its own construc- 
tion of these fundamental questions. They are not theoretical 
merely, but very practical in their bearing. Were the two Meth- 
odisms organically united, it would lead to serious collisions, 
and expose the minority to harassing legislation, if not to op- 
pression. 

The existence of slavery in the Southern States furnished an oc- 
casion, with its connected questions, fruitful of disturbance; and to 
this the division has been mainly attributed. The position of South- 
ern Methodism on that subject was scriptural. Our opinions have 
undergone no change. We held ourselves in readiness to carry the 
gospel to the bond and to the free. Missions to the slaves consti- 
tuted a large part of our work. Many of our ministers labored in 
this field, and much of our means was expended on it. These la- 
bors were eminently owned of God. At the beginning of the late 
war a quarter of a million of negroes were in the communion of 
our Church, and thousands of their children were receiving cate- 
chetical instruction. The Societies organized in the Southern 



208 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

members which swell their statistics, are made up largely of those 
who, in slavery, had been converted by our instrumentality. The 
colored preachers, exhorters, and class-leaders, by whom they have 
principally carried on their Southern work, and some of whom have 
been counted worthy of seats in their Annual and General Confer- 
ences, were Christianized and trained under our ministry, in other 
days. Following the indications of Providence, we have, without 
abandoning this work, adapted our methods to the changed condi- 
tion of the descendants of the African race in the midst of us. 
Many of them had been drawn away from us by appliances that 
we were not prepared to counteract; but a remnant remained. At 
their request we have set off our colored members into an inde- 
pendent ecclesiastical body, with our own creed and polity. "We 
have turned over to them the titles and possession of the Church- 
property, formerly held by us for their use and benefit, and we 
propose to continue to them such moral and material aid as we are 
able to give. 

This method has met with encouraging success. We believe it 
to be the best for both races. They have now fifteen Annual Con- 
ferences, four Bishops, six hundred and seven traveling preachers, 
five hundred and eighteen local preachers, seventy-four thousand 
seven hundred and ninety-nine members, five hundred and thirty- 
five Sunday-schools, one thousand one hundred and two Sunday- 
school teachers, and forty-nine thousand nine hundred and fifty-five 
Sunday-school scholars. They dwell in the land side by side with 
us, and between us and them exist the kindest relations. 

Our Northern brethren have pursued a different plan, and they 
seem to be committed to it by honest and conscientious convictions. 
They have mixed Conferences, mixed congregations, and mixed 
schools. We do not ask them to adopt our plan. We could not 
adopt theirs. 

We refer to these things in order that our position may not be 
attributed by any to prejudice, resentment, or other motives un- 
worthy of Christians. 

But whilst we are clear and final in our declarations against the 
union of the two Methodisms, we welcome measures looking to the 
removal of obstacles in the way of amity and peace. The existence 
of these obstacles is generally known, and they are frankly recog- 
nized in the addresses of the Delegates sent to us. 

Our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church will, we trust, 
appreciate our uniform and frequent reference to the Plan of Sep- 
aration. No adjustment can be considered by us that ignores it. 
By that Plan we hold all our church-houses, cemeteries, school-build- 
ings, and other property, acquired before the division. Under it 
we claimed and recovered our portion of the common fund in the 
Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati. ' 

When its validity was denied by our Northern brethren, and the 
share of the common property inuring to us under it was withheld 
by them, the Plan of Separation was taken for ultimate adjudica- 
tion to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that highest 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 209 

civil tribunal, without a dissenting voice, affirmed its validity, and 
our rights under it. 

When the representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
asserted before that tribunal that they were the original Church, 
and that we were a secession, the court said: 

It can no more be affirmed, either in point of fact or of law, that they are 
traveling preachers in connection with the Methodist Church as originally 
constituted, since the division, than of those in connection with the Church, 
South. Their organization covers but about half of the territory embraced 
within that of the former Church, and includes within it but a little over two- 
thirds of the traveling preachers. Their General Conference is not the Gen- 
eral Conference of the old Church, nor does it represent the interest or possess 
territorially the authority of the same; nor are they the body under whose 
care this fund was placed by its founders. It may be admitted that, within 
the restricted limits, the organization and authority are the same as the 
former Church; but the same"~is equally true in respect to the organization of 
the Church, South. 

When the same parties attempted to set aside the Plan of Separa- 
tion on the ground that it was made without proper authority, the 
court said: 

But we do not agree that this division was made without the proper author- 
ity. On the contrary, we entertain no doubt but that the General Conference 
of 1844 was competent to make it; and that each division of the Church, under 
the separate organization, is just as legitimate, and can claim as high a sanc- 
tion, ecclesiastical and temporal, as the Methodist Episcopal Church first 
founded in the United States. The same authority which founded that Church 
in 1784 has divided it, and established two separate and independent organi- 
zations, occupying the place of the old one. 

However others may regard that instrument, the Plan of Sepa- 
ration is too important in its application to our status and security 
to be lightly esteemed by us. If it should be said that its provis- 
ions touching territorial limits have been violated by both parties, 
we have this to say: We are ready to confer with our Northern 
brethren on that point. A joint commission having this feature 
of the compact under revision might reach a solution mutually 
satisfactory. 

Measures preparatory to formal fraternity would be defective 
that leave out of view questions in dispute between the Methodist 
Episcopal Church and ourselves. These questions relate to the 
course pursued by some of their accredited agents whilst prosecu- 
ting their work in the South, and to property which has been taken 
and held by them to this day against our protest and remonstrance. 
Although feeling ourselves sorely aggrieved in these things, we 
stand ready to meet our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in the spirit of Christian candor, and to compose all differ- 
ences upon the principles of justice and equity. 

It is to be regretted that the honored representatives who bore 
fraternal greetings to us were not empowered also to enter upon a 
settlement of these vexed questions We are prepared to take ad- 
vanced steps in this direction, and, waiving any considerations 
which might justify a greater reserve, we will not only appoint a 
delegation to return the greetings so gracefully conveyed to us 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, but we will also provide for 



210 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

si commission to meet a similar commission from that Church for 
the purpose of settling disturbing questions. 

Open and righteous treatment of all cases of complaint will fur- 
nish the only solid ground upon which we can meet. Kelations of 
amity are, with special emphasis, demanded between bodies so near 
akin. We be brethren. To the realization of this the families of 
Methodism are called by the movements of the times. The at- 
tractive power of the cross is working mightily. The Christian 
elements in the world are all astir in their search for each other. 
Christian hearts are crying to each other across vast spaces, and 
longing for fellowship. The heart of Southern Methodism being 
in full accord with these sentiments, your committee submit the 
following resolutions for adoption: 

Resolved, That this General Conference has received with pleasure the fra- 
ternal greetings of the Methodist Episcopal Church, conveyed to us by their 
Delegates, and that our College of Bishops be, and are hereby, authorized to 
appoint a delegation, consisting of two ministers and one layman, to bear our 
Christian salutations to their next ensuing General Conference. 

Resolved, That, in order to remove all obstacles to formal fraternity between 
the two Churches, our College of Bishops is authorized to appoint a commis- 
sion, consisting of three ministers and two laymen, to meet a similar com- 
mission authorized by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and to adjust all existing difficulties. 

The differences of opinion on this occasion do not 
indicate division of sentiment as to the principles or 
disbelief of the facts here embodied. They grew partly 
out of want of consideration of the entire action of the 
other G-eneral Conference, and partly out of miscon- 
ception of the purpose for which the document was 
prepared. Some thought that it was to be carried as 
the credentials of the fraternal messengers to be sent 
to the Conference of 1876, whereas it was an answer 
to the declaration of principles set forth in the pream- 
ble of the report in the Conference of 1872. That 
there was no essential diversity of views as to facts 
and principles appears from a resolution offered after- 
ward, with the signatures of several members, among 
which were those of three of the four who had offered 
the substitute for the original report, and two of the 
three who had offered the minority report. The reso- 
lution, as passed without a division by the Conference, 
is as follows : 

Whereas, The discussions and votes of this Conference on the 
subject of fraternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and its cognate subjects, present the appearance of essential differ- 
ences which do not exist; therefore, 

1. Resolved, That upon the subject of fraternal relations with 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 211 

the Methodist Episcopal Church, upon a proper "basis, this Confer- 
ence is a unit. 

2. Resolved, That we are also a unit upon the propriety of ap- 
pointing a commission empowered to meet a like commission from 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, to settle all questions of difficulty 
"between us, and that such settlement is essential to complete fra- 
ternity. 

' 3. Resolved, That the only points of difference between us on 
this whole subject are the best methods of accomplishing this de- 
sired end. 

An examination of the report adopted by the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1874 will convince one that it really 
covers only the ground included in the action of the 
other body in 1872 — namely: 

1. "The past events"- — and here the Church, South, 
reiterates explicitly that "basis of intercourse" it had 
so often stated as the only one it would consider "al- 
together honorable" to itself — namely, a recognition 
of the "solemn league and covenant" of 1844, on which, 
acting in good faith, it had laid the foundations of a 
perfectly legitimate Methodism. The Conference gave 
reasons why it could not, even for fraternity's sake, 
afford quietly to ignore this important instrument. If 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, in offering fraternity, 
might be allowed to say that it held the action of 1848 
declaring it "null and void" to be "right," shall the 
Church, South, overborne by sentimental utterances, 
blench now, and in accepting that offer fail to utter 
as explicitly what it had said over and often, that it 
esteemed that repudiation "wrong," and that "no ad- 
justment can be considered by us which ignores" the 
Plan? This deliverance is all the more important be- 
cause one of the Delegates treated the occasion as 
though he felt it to be the dawn of the day of "organic 
union;" and it was but honest and honorable to dispel 
all such expectations in advance. The daily press ex- 
hibited a forwardness in its comments on these "greet- 
ings" both misleading and damaging. Whatever effect 
such hopes may have produced beyond the "border," 
had the General Conference given ground for enter- 
taining them the effect would have been as disastrous 
to Methodism throughout the entire South as the pas- 
sage of the Finley Eesolution would have been, but for 



212 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

the prompt and wise recommendations of the Southern 
Delegates in 1844, whereby all the Southern Confer- 
ences came to act as a unit. Southern Methodists, by 
tens of thousands, would have repudiated the action 
that placed them in the attitude of "secessionists from 
the Mother Church," or which allowed the truth of 
that postulate, even by implication. 

2. The Church-property difficulties were more than 
mentioned. Recognized as a bar to permanent frater- 
nal relations, this Conference did wisely what the other 
unwisely left undone. It provided for a commission to 
"adjust all existing difficulties." Need I argue as to 
which was the wiser course, if there is to be a perma- 
nent peace? 

3. And we are now brought face to face with the 
main point involved in the action of the Conference 
of 1872 — fraternization. It seems to have been begun 
auspiciously; and, perhaps, no Christian man, North 
or South, regrets what was done on this special occa- 
sion. The addresses, the intercourse, the interchange 
of Christian courtesies, the expressions of interest and 
sympathy, the prayers and the tears, were they all 
wasted on a tentative effort that is to bring forth no 
permanent good result? The attitude these Churches 
have held toward each other for thirty years is dis- 
creditable to Christianity; but there can be nothing 
better than the semblance of peace betwixt them, until 
their relations are determined upon principles recog- 
nized by both Communions. The intercourse begun 
ought not to end with mutual courtesies and hollow 
professions of amity. The Church, South, has griev- 
ances to urge against her sister Church, as this history 
shows; yet she must recognize the other as of the 
body of Christ, doing a great and good work under 
his headship. If right relations can be established, 
she can never feel disparaged by being considered a 
coequal, co-working sister Church, united in labors 
where we can agree, cordial and loving even where 
we differ. Something, then, should be done to wrest 
from the occasion more than a hollow truce. This ul- 
timate result now depends upon the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church. The Church, South, has said that it de- 



The Disruption op the M. E. Church. 213 

sires fraternity — "amity and peace." It has declared 
what "basis" for fraternal intercourse it "esteems al- 
together honorable" to itself. If it seem over-per- 
sistent in insisting that the Plan of Separation be 
recognized, it is because its legitimacy and its rights 
of property depend on that Plan. It deems that this 
persistence no more violates Christian charity, or ex- 
hibits an arrogant spirit, than did the demand of St. 
Paul, who, when he had been unjustly dealt with by 
those in authority, would not be satisfied with the bare 
message of the Eoman magistrates to the Philippian 
jailer, "Let these men go," but, remembering his rep- 
resentative character as an apostle of Christ, and as- 
serting his dignity and rights as a Eoman citizen, he 
answered, "Nay, verily; they have beaten us uncon- 
demnned ; let them come and fetch us out." The Church, 
South, remembering that it, too, is one of the represent- 
ative Christian bodies, set for the defense of truth and 
justice, and that it is bound to maintain the inviolability 
of solemn ecclesiastical compacts, as an exemplification 
to the world of the morals of Christianity, which allows 
no laxity in respect to covenants, may with equal pro- 
priety say, frankly, to the body proffering fraternity 
that there are serious misunderstandings between the 
two bodies which demand adjustment; that the most 
serious of all is that the relative status of the Church, 
South, to the original Methodist Episcopal Church 
has been determined ex parte — its acts condemned 
without a hearing — itself placed in a false attitude be- 
fore the Christian world; that, on every proper occa- 
sion, it has maintained this position, and it ought not 
now to be esteemed unchristian or arrogant still to 
maintain it; that it desires to make an end of all cause 
of denominational hostility and disagreement, always 
damaging to religion, especially when existing betwixt 
Churches, like ours, in natural alliance because once a 
unit, and only separated into two jurisdictions by mu- 
tual consent, the better to promote the interests of 
religion. 

And while the Church, South, thus seeks to uphold 
its own legitimacy, and to maintain the honor of "the 
fathers" and the honorableness of its origin, and to 



214 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

transmit an unsullied name to those who come after, 
secured in all their rights, it desires no humiliating 
confessions or apologies from its sister Church. It be- 
lieves that the General Conference of 1848, overborne 
by the excitements of the day, hastily pronounced 
sentence of outlawry against it when it had no oppor- 
tunity to confront its accusers. It now appeals to the 
calmer judgment of the present generation of Method- 
ists against that precipitate action. This volume offers 
the principal facts that make up the history pertinent 
to the subject. It cannot but be believed that all can- 
did and unprejudiced students of a history so au- 
thenticated by evidence will be driven, by their own 
sense of justice, to revolt against the sentence that as- 
signed to the Church, South, as has been done by the 
authorized history of the "Great Secession," a dishon- 
orable place among schismatic Communions; and if 
this be a result of reinvestigation of the matters in 
controversy, then will it be no degradation, but highly 
honorable — an exhibition of lofty principle, of real 
Christian high-mindedness — in this generation of 
Methodists to confess that their fathers erred, and to 
do what they can to bring out of the present tentative 
efforts for fraternization a peace at once permanent 
and honorable to both Communions. 

If the Methodists thus addressed will hear what the 
Church, South, can offer for its justification, and, rein- 
vestigating the case, decide that the relations of the 
two Methodisms may be considered to have been finally 
and properly settled by the decision of the Supreme 
Court — notwithstanding any thing to the contrary de- 
clared by its General Conference prior to that decision — 
then, the fundamental fact of the validity of the Plan 
of Separation being thus agreed upon, all other de- 
pendent questions become proper subjects of renewed 
negotiation; for such review and readjustment of the 
details of the Plan are suggested by the General Con- 
ference, when it says: "If it should be said that its 
provisions have been violated by both parties, we have 
this to say : We are ready to confer with our Northern 
brethren on that point. A joint commission having 
this feature of the compact under revision might reach 



The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 215 

a solution mutually satisfactory." Starting with the 
premises above indicated, and considering every part 
of the Plan which may have been infracted as before 
the commissioners of both parties for revision, a new 
treaty of peace may be made more in accord with the 
]*resent political and ecclesiastical condition of affairs. 
Border or no border, occupied or restored Churches — 
whatever has made difficulty — can be easily adjusted 
when once it is settled that the relation between these 
two Communions is not like that between two Churches 
totally distinct from the beginning, but that there is 
between them a quasi-organic connection, transmitted 
from their common mother — a transfusion from their 
original identity in the one, undivided Methodist Epis- 
copal Church in the United States. 

Whether or not our co-religionists will concede so 
much, the fact remains as stated in the Eeport of 1874: 
"However others may regard that instrument, the 
Plan of Separation is too important in its application 
to our status and security to be lightly esteemed " by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. To its status, be- 
cause, as we have seen, those who deny the validity of 
the Plan fix upon this Church the odium of schism; to 
its security, because the other Church having denied 
the legitimate transfer to it of the original trusteeship 
over the houses of worship, etc., that came to the South 
on the division of jurisdiction; and, besides, having 
never conceded that the decision of the Supreme Court 
dividing the Book Concern property is equitable — in- 
deed, denying its equity in official documents and or- 
gans, and in Church-suits — that action places the 
Church, South, in the attitude (1) of holding such 
property without having any moral rights of trustee- 
ship over it; (2) of holding possession of it, though 
legally, yet only by an unrighteous judicial decision. 
In such case there can be no compromise of difficulties; 
for there is no room for compromise when there is no 
shadow of rights; and coming to any terms that leave 
the Southern trespassers in possession would be but 
compounding felony. Hence it is the manifest duty 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church to reclaim posses- 
sion of all such property whenever it can bring judicial 



216 The Disruption of the M. E. Church. 

decrees to coincide with its opinion, that its moral 
claim to the property is indefeasible. Thus are the 
members of the Church, South, degraded, by this per- 
sistence in repudiation of the Plan, to the position of 
legalized robbers, whom it will be equitable to oust 
from their immorally acquired possessions if ever justice 
prevails in the land. Can it be surprising that they 
cannot feel a cordial fraternity toward those who, if 
they have studied all the facts of this history, yet per- 
sist in justifying that action — claiming it to be "right" 
— which thus stigmatizes their fathers and themselves? 
In again stating, therefore, the conditions so often 
propounded as a preliminary to permanent fraterniza- 
tion, that Church has but obeyed the spirit, at least, of 
the Master's injunction: "If thy brother trespass 
against thee, go and tell him his fault." If the Church, 
South, is not heard, its next appeal must be to the 
Christian world — "tell it to the Church;" and, plead- 
ing before it the well-established facts here offered, it 
has nothing to fear — the verdict cannot go against it. 
But it will be sad, indeed, if, after all the sentimental 
and sympathetic intercourse at Louisville and subse- 
quently, impartial justice shall require that Southern 
Christians then obey the Lord's farther injunction: 
"Let" the "brother" — representing that Church — 
"which neglects to hear " " be unto thee as an heathen 
man and a publican." Paul's appeal for justice to the 
heathen magistrates will have been so much more suc- 
cessful that the Christian justice of the nineteenth 
century will be put to shame. 



The End. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



